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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to an application filed on 11/04/2025. Claims 1-7 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), and does not include additional elements that either: 1) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or 2) that provide an inventive concept — i.e. element that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea because, when considered as a whole, the plain focus of the claims is on an abstract idea.
STEP 1
The claims are directed to an apparatus and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which are included in the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE
The claims recite the abstract idea (based on claim 1) of:
comprising: execute each of a plurality of inspection processes determined in advance for the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus based on a schedule in which an execution order is determined in advance for each of the inspection processes; and generate report data indicating a result obtained for each of the inspection processes.
The claims, as illustrated by the limitations of Claim 1 above, recite an abstract idea within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping — managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and additionally recite an abstract idea within the “mathematical concepts” grouping - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
The claims recite generating a report based on a result of scheduled inspection processes executed on a ultrasound apparatus. Generating a report based on a result of scheduled inspection processes executed on a ultrasound apparatus is a process that merely organizes human activity, as it involves following rules and instructions to determine inspection process execution order schedule, execute inspection processes, and generate report. The claims also involve interaction between a person and an computer. Interaction between a person and computer qualifies as interaction under certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). As such, the claims recite an abstract idea within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Independent claim 7 recites similar limitations and is rejected for the same reasons.
The dependent claims 2-6 recite further abstract ideas within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, such as 2 the schedule defines an execution time slot for each inspection process such that a first inspection process included in one of a plurality of processing systems executed in parallel and a second inspection process included in another of the plurality of processing systems are executed, and a plurality of the first inspection processes are executed while one second inspection process is being executed; 3 the schedule defines an execution time slot for each inspection process such that a first inspection process included in one of a plurality of processing systems executed in parallel and a second inspection process included in another of the plurality of processing systems are executed, while a preceding second inspection process is being executed, a preceding first inspection process is executed, and further, a part of a subsequent first inspection process is executed, and in association with execution of the preceding second inspection process and execution of a subsequent second inspection process, a remaining part of the subsequent first inspection process is executed while the subsequent second inspection process is being executed; 4 the schedule defines an execution condition based on an execution frequency for each inspection process included in each of a plurality of processing systems executed in parallel, and the processor is configured to execute the inspection process in a case in which the execution condition is satisfied; 5 operate based on the schedule in a case in which power is supplied to the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus and a startup process is executed; 6 create a report or display the report.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO
The claims recite additional elements beyond those that encompass the abstract idea above including:
Independent claim 1:
An ultrasound diagnostic apparatus
a processor configured to:
Dependent claim 2:
The ultrasound diagnostic apparatus
Dependent claim 3:
The ultrasound diagnostic apparatus
Dependent claim 4:
The ultrasound diagnostic apparatus
the processor is configured to
Dependent claim 5:
The ultrasound diagnostic apparatus
the processor is configured to
Dependent claim 6:
The ultrasound diagnostic apparatus
the processor is configured to
cause a printer connected to the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus to
cause a display unit connected to the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus
Independent claim 7:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an ultrasound diagnostic program loaded into an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus including a processor, the ultrasound diagnostic program causing the processor to execute a process comprising:
However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of that idea in accordance with considerations laid out by the Supreme Court or the Federal Circuit. (see MPEP 2106.05 a-c and e) The additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when they: improve the functioning of a computer or improving any other technology, apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when they merely serve to link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use — i.e. merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea; or recite insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05 f - h).
The ultrasound apparatus, processor, printer, display unit, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. These elements merely add instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Nothing in the claim recites specific limitations directed to an improved ultrasound apparatus, processor, printer, display unit, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Similarly, the specification is silent with respect to these kinds of improvements. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception to computer functions, as is the case here, does not qualify as a particular machine, nor does the recitation of a basic computer impose meaningful limits in the claimed process. (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract report generation process into a practical application of that process.
STEP 2B
The additional elements identified above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract report generation process. The additional structural elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer structure. Because the specification describes these additional elements in general terms, without describing particulars, Examiner concludes that the claim limitations may be broadly, but reasonably construed, as reciting basic computer components and techniques. The specification describes the elements in a manner that indicates that they are sufficiently straightforward such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars in order to satisfy U.S.C. 112. Considered as an ordered combination, the limitations recited in the claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered individually.
The limitations recited in the dependent claims, in combination with those recited in the independent claims add nothing that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, or that amounts to significantly more. For example, dependent claim limitations 2 the schedule defines an execution time slot for each inspection process such that a first inspection process included in one of a plurality of processing systems executed in parallel and a second inspection process included in another of the plurality of processing systems are executed, and a plurality of the first inspection processes are executed while one second inspection process is being executed; 3 the schedule defines an execution time slot for each inspection process such that a first inspection process included in one of a plurality of processing systems executed in parallel and a second inspection process included in another of the plurality of processing systems are executed, while a preceding second inspection process is being executed, a preceding first inspection process is executed, and further, a part of a subsequent first inspection process is executed, and in association with execution of the preceding second inspection process and execution of a subsequent second inspection process, a remaining part of the subsequent first inspection process is executed while the subsequent second inspection process is being executed; 4 the schedule defines an execution condition based on an execution frequency for each inspection process included in each of a plurality of processing systems executed in parallel, and the processor is configured to execute the inspection process in a case in which the execution condition is satisfied; 5 operate based on the schedule in a case in which power is supplied to the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus and a startup process is executed; 6 create a report or display the report are directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity without integrating into a practical application or amounting to significantly more. As such, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or provide an inventive concept that transforms the claims into a patent eligible invention. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fallon, et al. (US 2003/0028341 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Fallon teaches an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (figure 1) comprising: a processor (see at least ¶ 0070) configured to: execute each of a plurality of inspection processes determined in advance for the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus based on a schedule in which an execution order is determined in advance for each of the inspection processes (see at least ¶ 0009, the present invention provides an ultrasonic imaging system including a power on self test (POST) and an extended self test (EST). The POST is initiated, performed and completed within three seconds of power ON. The POST includes at least one of the group consisting of a verification test, a register test, a controller test, a receive digital signal path test and a basic front end test. The EST is performed at the discretion of an operator after completion of the POST. The EST includes at least one of the group consisting of a transmit test, a transducer element test, a front end voltage test and a receive test; ¶ 0030, POST 160 includes a verification test 63, a register test 64, a controller test 66, a receive digital signal path test 70 and a basic front end test 71; ¶ 0033, register test 64 is initiated, performed and completed after completion of verification test 63; ¶ 0035, controller test 66 is initiated, performed and completed after completion of register test 64; ¶ 0040, receive digital signal path test 70 is initiated, performed and completed after completion of controller test 66; ¶ 0042, basic front end test 71 is initiated, performed and completed after completion of receive digital signal path test 70; ¶ 0043, the above-described order in which the various tests of POST 160 are performed is designed so that components required for subsequent tests are tested first; ¶ 0050, same order for EST sequence); and generate report data indicating a result obtained for each of the inspection processes (see at least ¶ 0051, 0060, at the end of EST 162, a bit pattern is displayed for transmit test 72, receive test 78 and transducer element test 74, indicating possible bad channels, a log in memory to record errors entered during POST 160 and EST 162. The error log might then be read from memory and viewable on a display during EST 162 so that an operator can diagnose what has gone wrong).
Fallon also teaches in claim 7, A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an ultrasound diagnostic program loaded into an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus including a processor, the ultrasound diagnostic program causing the processor to execute a process (see at least ¶ 0070, Post 160 and EST 162 would reside in software code stored in ultrasonic imaging system 30. For example, such code might reside, for example, in first on-board memory 54. Moreover, such code would be run by a processor, such as processor 110).
Claim 7 recites similar limitations and is rejected for the same reasons.
With regards to claim 4, Fallon teaches the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the schedule defines an execution condition based on an execution frequency for each inspection process included in each of a plurality of processing systems executed in parallel, and the processor is configured to execute the inspection process in a case in which the execution condition is satisfied (see at least ¶ 0052-0054, the run time software would control the execution of both POST 160 and EST 162, as well as, for example, the periodic monitoring of system parameters, continuous periodic monitoring of various system parameters (such as, for example, transmit parameters, temperature, etc) during normal system operation, diagnostic tests are organized with a methodology in which the tests are grouped and run with timing and a frequency that depends upon their criticality and duration. For example, system diagnostics, which are embedded in the run time code, are conducted either every time the system is turned ON during POST 160, or at the operator's convenience during EST 162).
With regards to claim 5, Fallon teaches the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to operate based on the schedule in a case in which power is supplied to the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus and a startup process is executed (see at least ¶ 0029, POST 160 is performed automatically by ultrasonic imaging system 30 when the system is powered ON and, in this example, runs in less than three seconds with a comprehensive test of the system).
With regards to claim 6, Fallon teaches the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to, based on the report data, cause a printer connected to the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus to create a report or cause a display unit connected to the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus to display the report (see at least ¶ 0051, 0060, at the end of EST 162, a bit pattern is displayed for transmit test 72, receive test 78 and transducer element test 74, indicating possible bad channels, a log in memory to record errors entered during POST 160 and EST 162. The error log might then be read from memory and viewable on a display during EST 162 so that an operator can diagnose what has gone wrong).
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 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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallon, et al. (US 2003/0028341 A1) in view of Zhou, et al. (US 2009/0037132 A1).
With regards to claim 2, Fallon does not explicitly teach the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the schedule defines an execution time slot for each inspection process such that a first inspection process included in one of a plurality of processing systems executed in parallel and a second inspection process included in another of the plurality of processing systems are executed, and a plurality of the first inspection processes are executed while one second inspection process is being executed. Zhou teaches the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the schedule defines an execution time slot for each inspection process such that a first inspection process included in one of a plurality of processing systems executed in parallel and a second inspection process included in another of the plurality of processing systems are executed, and a plurality of the first inspection processes are executed while one second inspection process is being executed (see at least figure 11, ¶ 0077-0079, while all tests within a test group may be concurrently performed, test groups are performed sequentially. Accordingly, Tests A-n of a first test group of FIG. 10 may be concurrently performed, but other test groups would be performed before or after the first test group. It should also be noted that the length each Test A-n may vary. BUT-level tests may be performed in an overlapping manner as illustrated in FIG. 11 in which each test of the BUT-level test group is split into three components: a pre-measurement component 1110, a measurement component 1112, and a post-measurement component 1114. As illustrated in FIG. 11, the pre-measurement component 1110 may be performed concurrently with the measurement component 1112 of another test. For example, the pre-measurement component 1110b of Test B may be performed concurrently with the measurement component 1112a of Test A. In this manner, while the tests may not be performed completely in a concurrent manner, the tests may overlap, thereby allowing the tests to be performed in less time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the parallel test system of Zhou with the ultrasound testing method of Fallon with the motivation of allowing the tests to be performed in less time (Zhou, ¶ 0079).
With regards to claim 3, Fallon does not explicitly teach the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the schedule defines an execution time slot for each inspection process such that a first inspection process included in one of a plurality of processing systems executed in parallel and a second inspection process included in another of the plurality of processing systems are executed, while a preceding second inspection process is being executed, a preceding first inspection process is executed, and further, a part of a subsequent first inspection process is executed, and in association with execution of the preceding second inspection process and execution of a subsequent second inspection process, a remaining part of the subsequent first inspection process is executed while the subsequent second inspection process is being executed. Zhou teaches the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the schedule defines an execution time slot for each inspection process such that a first inspection process included in one of a plurality of processing systems executed in parallel and a second inspection process included in another of the plurality of processing systems are executed, while a preceding second inspection process is being executed, a preceding first inspection process is executed, and further, a part of a subsequent first inspection process is executed, and in association with execution of the preceding second inspection process and execution of a subsequent second inspection process, a remaining part of the subsequent first inspection process is executed while the subsequent second inspection process is being executed (see at least figure 11, ¶ 0084-0086, Tests A2 and B1 represent two tests that have been identified as being channel-independent tests, but may have a BUT-level conflict. Accordingly, tests A2 and B1 may be performed in an overlapping manner as described above with reference to FIG. 11. Test B2 is illustrated as being performed in an overlapping manner with test A2. Tests A3, A14, and D5 illustrate the performance of a total-independence test group, or tests that may be performed concurrently by the device under test). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the parallel test system of Zhou with the ultrasound testing method of Fallon with the motivation of allowing the tests to be performed in less time (Zhou, ¶ 0079).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sampson II, et al. (US 2024/0032897 A1) which discloses an ultrasound system is configured to perform periodic self-testing of the system's hardware components. Results of the self-testing are stored on the ultrasound system in a data log, and periodically uploaded to a self-test database. The self-test database is sorted, then analyzed by engineers of the ultrasound system manufacturer to discern variances or trends in ultrasound system hardware performance or operation. As a result of the analysis, updated or improved self-test programs are developed by the system manufacturer and uploaded to and installed on ultrasound systems of the installed base of systems.
Olarig, et al. (US 2002/0174381 A1) which discloses a computer system includes multiple controllers that assist in executing the Power-On Self Test (POST) sequence to minimize the time required to complete system initialization. By shifting some of the responsibilities for executing the POST sequence to other controllers within the system, the testing and initialization of system devices can proceed concurrently. The controllers interface with peripheral devices, and include a register set that includes command information for initializing the testing and initialization of associated peripherals. The register set also includes dedicated bits for indicating the status of testing and initialization cycles, which can be read by the CPU to determine if testing or initialization is in progress, if it has completed, and if any errors have occurred. The register set also includes a configuration register for indicating configuration information and operating parameters of the initialized drive or peripheral. By distributing the testing and initialization responsibilities to the controllers, execution of the BIOS system software or system initialization software can be expedited, thus minimizing down time caused by initializing the computer system.
N. Domingues, "Industry 4.0 in maintenance: Using condition monitoring in electric machines," 2021 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Application (DASA), Sakheer, Bahrain, 2021, pp. 456-462, doi: 10.1109/DASA53625.2021.9682254 which discloses industry traditionally considered maintenance as a cost and a necessity to replace equipment and machines, but the path has changed to better focus on maintenance to prevent faults and it was designated as predictive. The ones motivated to take these advantages are faced with two of the biggest barriers: the investment it requires and the difficulty to develop algorithms. The costs of installation are still high, but the avoided costs surpass it. Also, Internet of Things (IoT) has brought a big shift, which is been known as the industry 4.0. One of the potentials in maintenance is the conditioning monitoring. Condition monitoring sensors and devices are now linked to maintenance platforms, providing real-time data. This new connectivity is both more affordable and easier to implement than predictive maintenance. Real-time data allows managers to adjust preventive maintenance plans while providing greater reliability. At the same time, artificial intelligence manages this data to recognize patterns, which is one of the most promising advances in digital reliability. So, regardless of the ability to immediately implement a preventive maintenance plan, condition monitoring is an asset itself. The present paper presents the common faults on electric machines, their effects, their impact on the industry and the main techniques on condition control to prevent them. It is also added the reflection on the use of IoT to enhance the potential of condition control maintenance. The implementation of continuous improvement actions throughout the life of the equipment allows to increase efficiency, either by overcoming weaknesses or by adapting production or operational capacities to processes, production or maintenance, avoiding under maintenance or over maintenance and minimizing operating costs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joey Burgess whose telephone number is (571)270-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9-6.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached on 571-272-6702 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.
/JOSEPH D BURGESS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights