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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 10, 13-14,
“Processing circuitry configured to”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-6, 9-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (Pub. No.: US 2009/0143676) in view of Choi et al (Pub. No.: US 2016/0287215)
Regarding claims 1, 15, Matsumura discloses an ultrasonic image display apparatus, comprising:
processing circuitry configured to
perform an ultrasonic scanning of a subject [see figs 26A-B]
calculate, at each of a plurality of positions in a scanning region subjected to the ultrasonic scanning [see claim 18, figs 26A-B], an index representing a reliability of a tissue characterization parameter [see 0060, fig 2]
display at least both of a superimposition image and scale information, the superimposition image being an image in which a color corresponding to the index representing the reliability is superimposed at least one position of an ultrasonic image representing the subject [see 0060]
the scale information representing a relationship between the color and the index representing the reliability [see 0060]
Matsumura discloses outputting and displaying the evaluation results of the tissue property, thus further improving the reliability in the tissue identification [see 0112]
Matsumura doesn’t disclose calculate an index representing a reliability of a tissue characterization parameter.
Nonetheless, Choi et al disclose output a user interface screen that enables a user to recognize a reliability value, or a reliability value and a quality value more intuitively [see 0120, 0204, figs 4, 12, 20]
Choi et al disclose the display 320 may display each of an elasticity value and a reliability value as a respective numerical value. In this aspect, the reliability value may be equal to or greater than zero (0) and equal to or less than one (1). According to an exemplary embodiment, the display 320 may display a graph that represents a magnitude of a reliability value. Further, according to an exemplary embodiment, the display 320 may display an elasticity value by using a color that corresponds to a magnitude of a reliability value. As described above, when a reliability value is equal to or greater than about 0.7, the display 320 may display an elasticity value as a green letter, and when a reliability value is less than about 0.7, the display 320 may display an elasticity value as a red letter. Alternatively, the display 320 may display at least one from among an image, a letter, an icon, and a symbol that corresponds to a magnitude of a reliability value [see 0120].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Matsumura and Choi et al by calculating an index representing a reliability of a tissue characterization parameter; to enable the user to easily determine whether the elasticity value is an appropriate value [see abstract, Choi et al].
Regarding claim 2, Matsumura doesn’t disclose wherein, in the scale information, the index representing the reliability comprises a plurality of ranges and the color varies according to the ranges.
Nonetheless, Choi et al disclose in the scale information, the index representing the reliability comprises a plurality of ranges and the color varies according to the ranges [see 0120] by disclosing a method for displaying an elasticity value and a reliability value may vary [see 0120, 0137, 0167, figs 4, 12, 18].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Matsumura and Choi et al by using in the scale information, the index representing the reliability comprises a plurality of ranges and the color varies according to the ranges; to accurately present the reliability as the color varies.
Regarding claim 3, Matsumura doesn’t disclose wherein, in the scale information, the color continuously varies according to the relationship between the color and the index representing the reliability.
Nonetheless, Choi et al disclose in the scale information, the color continuously varies according to the relationship between the color and the index representing the reliability [see 0120, 0137, 0167].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Matsumura and Choi et al by in the scale information, the color continuously varies according to the relationship between the color and the index representing the reliability; to accurately present the reliability as the elasticity varies.
Regarding claim 4, Matsumura discloses wherein, in the superimposition image, the color is superimposed at least one position of the ultrasonic image at a predetermined opacity or transparency [see 0133-0134].
Regarding claim 5, Matsumura discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display the superimposition image and the scale information side by side [see figs 6-14, 19-24].
Regarding claim 6, Matsumura discloses wherein the ultrasonic image is a B-mode image acquired by a scanning differing (via scan converter) from the ultrasonic scanning [see 0013, 0055, 0165] by disclosing the tomographic image in the tomographic site generated based on the ultrasonic tomographic data, the elastic image, and the histogram may be displayed on the same screen [see 0013].
Regarding claim 9, Matsumura discloses the ultrasonic image, the superimposition image, the scale information constitutes a first ultrasonic image, a first superimposition image, and first scale information, respectively [see figs 9, 19-21];
the processing circuitry is further configured to
calculate, at each of the plurality of positions in the scanning region subjected to the ultrasonic
scanning, an index representing tissue characterization [see 0060, figs 6, 8-9];
display at least both of a second superimposition image and second scale information [see figs 9, 19-21];
the second superimposition image being an image in which a color corresponding to the index representing the tissue characterization is superimposed on a second ultrasonic image representing the subject [see figs 9, 19-21];
the second scale information representing a relationship between the color and the index representing the tissue characterization [see figs 9, 19-21, 0060].
Regarding claim 10, Matsumura discloses identify a position of a structure based on the index representing the tissue characterization and a predetermined threshold, and not display the position of the structure or mask the position of the structure with a predetermined color in the second superimposition image [see 0168-0169].
Regarding claim 11, Matsumura discloses, wherein, in the second scale information:
the index representing the tissue characterization comprises a plurality of ranges [see figs 9, 19-21, 0060, 0081];
the color varies according to the ranges [see figs 8-9, 19-21, 0060, 0081].
Regarding claim 12, Matsumura discloses wherein, in the second scale information, the color continuously varies according to the relationship between the color and the index representing the tissue characterization [see figs 8-9, 19-21, 0060, 0081].
Regarding claim 13, Matsumura discloses acquire, as the index representing the tissue characterization, at least one of a viscosity index representing a tissue viscosity or an elasticity index representing a tissue elasticity [see abstract, 0058];
display, in a region of the second superimposition image that does not include a structure, a color according to at least one of the viscosity index or the elasticity index [see figs 8-9, 19-21].
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (Pub. No.: US 2009/0143676) in view of Choi et al (Pub. No.: US 2016/0287215) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Matsumura (Pub. No.: US 2010/0220901) referred herein as Matsumura 901
Regarding claim 7, Matsumura and Choi et al don’t disclose calculate the index representing the reliability based on a pixel value corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of positions in the scanning region subjected to the ultrasonic scanning.
Nonetheless, Matsumura 901 discloses calculate the index representing the reliability based on a pixel value corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of positions in the scanning region subjected to the ultrasonic scanning [see 0055, 0076-0077, 0089-0090]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Matsumura and Choi et al and Matsumura 901 by calculating the index representing the reliability based on a pixel value corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of positions in the scanning region subjected to the ultrasonic scanning; to enable the user to easily determine whether the elasticity value is an appropriate value [see abstract, Choi et al].
Regarding claim 8, Matsumura discloses calculate, as the index representing the reliability, a variance ratio based on a variance value and a mean value of the pixel value [see 0111 and fig 6]
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (Pub. No.: US 2009/0143676) in view of Choi et al (Pub. No.: US 2016/0287215) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kanayama et al (Pub. No.: US 2014/0114189)
Regarding claim 14, Matsumura and Choi et al don’t disclose acquire, as the index representing the tissue characterization, an attenuation index representing ultrasonic wave attenuation,
display, in a region of the second superimposition image that does not include a structure, a color according to the attenuation index.
Nonetheless, Kanayama et al disclose acquire, as the index representing the tissue characterization, an attenuation index representing ultrasonic wave attenuation [see 0043-0049, 0056 and fig 6];
display, in a region of the second superimposition image that does not include a structure, a color according to the attenuation index [see 0043-0049, 0073 and fig 6].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Matsumura and Choi et al and Kanayama et al by acquiring as the index representing the tissue characterization, an attenuation index representing ultrasonic wave attenuation and displaying in a region of the second superimposition image that does not include a structure, a color according to the attenuation index; non-invasive and widely accessible; quantitative assessment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL F BRUTUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3847. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat, 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
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.
/JOEL F BRUTUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights