DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 is objected to because acronyms should be defined at their first occurrence (PWD). Claim 12 is rejected because it ends with a comma and period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-13 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0378394 to Yamamoto in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0256132 to Halmann et al. “Halmann”.
With respect to Claim 1, Yamamoto discloses an ultrasound diagnostic system and method (Abstract) comprising processing circuity (1 in Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions) configured to set a sample gate (14 in Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions) based on, at least in part, B-mode data (Paragraphs [0007]-[0010]). Examiner notes Yamamoto’s B-mode data is considered to include blood flow information of a subject in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Yamamoto discloses where the Doppler gate is initially set based on, at least in part, blood vessel width “candidates” (e.g. x1, x2, x1m, x2m in Fig. 4 and corresponding descriptions and x3 and x4 in Fig. 6 and corresponding descriptions) where the candidates are used to determine blood vessel wall coordinates to appropriately set the Doppler gate (Paragraphs [0065]-[0070]). However, Yamamoto does not expressly disclose a step to further adjust the sample gate region as claimed.
Halmann teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to ultrasound imaging systems and methods (Abstract) where “new” gate positions may be determined to better capture Doppler data at the region of interest (Paragraphs [0066]-[0069]). In one embodiment, Halmann identifies one or more candidate positions as potential new Doppler gates (Paragraph [0069]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified Yamamoto’s gate positioning means to incorporate Halmann’s subsequent processing analysis to determine if and when a previously set Doppler gate needs to be adjusted in order to account for any changes in vessel location and identify an optimal Doppler gate position. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
As for Claim 2, Yamamoto discloses determining Doppler gate positions based on B-mode information as described above. Examiner notes the B-mode data is collected from transmitting ultrasound waves and receiving reflected (e.g. dispersed) ultrasound in its broadest reasonable interpretation. In addition, Halmann teaches wherein the ultrasound acquisition may include various parameters such as power (Paragraph [0034]), backscatter (e.g. dispersion) and velocity (Paragraphs [0035] [0038]). Halmann explains where the gates may be set based on fastest flow velocity (Paragraph [0068] or non-imaging features such as signal to noise ratio, morphology or amplitude of the Doppler signal (Paragraph [0069]).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamamoto determines the gate position based on, at least in part, imaging direction (Abstract; Paragraphs [0007] and [0008]).
With respect to Claim 4, each vessel wall candidate is considered to be in an ordered priority when the maximum value is used to determine vessel wall coordinates.
As for Claims 5-7, Yamamoto discloses steps to compare sets of vessel points in order to determine the most accurate blood vessel diameter (Paragraph [0063]). In addition, Halmann explains where the gates may be set based on fastest flow velocity (Paragraph [0068] or non-imaging features such as signal to noise ratio, morphology or amplitude of the Doppler signal (Paragraph [0069]). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have repeated the gate positioning in order to keep the gate positioned where the blood vessel is likely positioned.
Regarding Claim 8, Examiner notes the B-mode data as described above is generated based on “raw” ultrasound data in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
With respect to Claim 9, Halmann discloses where ultrasound data may be based on user selections received at a user interface (Paragraph [0044]) which is related to the gate adjustment in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
As for Claim 10, Yamamoto discloses a pulsed wave ultrasound transmission (Paragraph [0052]) while Halmann discloses pulsed wave Doppler techniques (Paragraph [0035]).
Regarding Claims 11-12, the modified system and method allows various user inputs (e.g. first, second, third, etc.) including, for example, selection of pulsed wave Doppler measurements as described above. In addition, Halmann describes embodiments of repositioning gates based on movement (Abstract; Paragraph [0026]). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have provided the vessel wall candidates based on the user inputs in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
As for Claim 13, Yamamoto discloses an image search line used to determine a brightness profile to identify vessel widths (Paragraphs [0063], [0069] [0103] and [0154]) and discloses using a threshold corresponding to the two points of the vascular wall candidate which is considered to read a ratio preset in advance by the user in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Yamamoto further discloses an embodiment where the blood vessel diameter calculation unit determines whether the second blood vessel diameter has a value within a determined range (e.g. preset value) including the first blood vessel diameter by comparing the diameters which may be considered a ratio in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER L COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approximately 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER L COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights