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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 1, in the second to last line, the limitation “execute control of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus using….” is recited. However, claim 1 is directed to an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus which is set forth as comprising a processor configured to receive information, perform coordinate conversion and execute control. It is unclear as to which component/element (i.e. processor or a specific step performed by the processor or an unclaimed part of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus, such as a probe) of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus is controlled via the step of “execute control of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus…”, thereby rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, it is assumed that it can be the processor that is controlled to perform some step of an ultrasound procedure, such as controlling an ultrasound probe to perform scanning based on the coordinates in the scanning coordinate system of an ultrasound beam (i.e. the coordinates of the designated point that have undergone the coordinate conversion).
With regards to claim 2, in line 3, it is unclear as to what is meant by “in the control”. For examination purposes, Examiner assumes that Applicant meant that executing the control of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus comprises setting a range of a position, etc..
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus" in the second to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus" in the second to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 15 is directed to “A computer data signal…”, wherein a “computer data signal” does not fall with at least one of the four categories of patent eligible 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dickie (US Pub No. 2024/0122573).
With regards to claims 1 and 13-15, Dickie discloses a method, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a computer data signal and an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus comprising:
a processor (116) (paragraphs [0059]-[0060], referring to the processor 116; Figure 1) configured to:
receive information on a point designated on an ultrasound image displayed on a screen (paragraphs [0060], [0066], referring to receiving a tap gesture input at a location directly on the ultrasound image feed on the touchscreen display, such location indicating on the post scan converted ultrasound image frame a desired focal adjustment point; paragraph [0067], referring to the user interface (401) of an ultrasound system that receives input via a single tap gesture “directly on the ultrasound image” in order to activate an automatic focal point adjustment; paragraph [0077], referring to the tap gesture inputs; Figures 4, 10);
perform coordinate conversion of coordinates (i.e. cartesian coordinates) of the designated point (i.e. tap gesture point/location) in a display coordinate system of the ultrasound image that are indicated by the information into coordinates (i.e. polar coordinates) in a scanning coordinate system of an ultrasound beam (paragraph [0066], referring to “reverting the post scan converted ultrasound image frame comprising the location of the desired focal adjustment point, by way of the cartesian co-ordinates, to its corresponding pre-scan raw ultrasound data frame, and then calculating on the pre-scan raw ultrasound data frame, the location of the desired focal adjustment point, by way of polar co-ordinates of the desired focal adjustment point…meaning that any point on the entire curvilinear image may be tapped and an accurate refocusing on that desired anatomical feature is attained”; paragraphs [0079], [0080]; Figure 10); and
execute control of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus using the coordinates of the designated point that have undergone the coordinate conversion (paragraph [0066], referring to “Thereafter, at least one beamformer parameter of ultrasound signals being used to transmit and receive the ultrasound image may be appropriately adjusted to focus on the desired focal adjustment point, based upon the polar coordinates. These steps of reverting to raw data format and using polar coordinates to adjust the beamformer parameters obviates any issues with the location of the tap gesture or touch point, meaning that any point on the entire curvilinear image may be tapped and an accurate refocusing on that desired anatomical feature is attained”; paragraph [0081], referring to “FIG. 10, act 1060 provides for the subsequent adjustment of at least one beamformer parameter of ultrasound signals to focus the new desired focal point, based upon the polar coordinates. More specifically, the at least one beamformer parameter relates to transmit beamforming. Transmit beamforming, at a selectable focal distance is achieved by specific timing delays among the active transducer elements, each with a known concave excitation profile”; Figure 10).
With regards to claim 2, Dickie discloses that the processor is configured to: in the control, set a range or a position (i.e. “New Desired Focal Point”) that is used to generate the ultrasound image based on the coordinates of the designated point that have undergone the coordinate conversion (paragraph [0083]; paragraph [0084], referring to the transmit beamformer parameters that can be adjusted include “Field of view (FOV): the sizes of the areas represented by the obtained images”, wherein the FOV represents a set range used to generate the ultrasound image; Figure 10, referring to step 1060, “Adjust at least one Beamformer Parameter of Ultrasound Signals to Focus at the New Desired Focal Point, Based upon Polar Co-ordinates”, wherein the new desired focal point corresponds to a set position to generate the ultrasound image).
With regards to claim 3, Dickie discloses that the range or the position that is used to generate the ultrasound image and that is a target of the setting defines a transmission range or a transmission position of the ultrasound beam for a specific display mode (i.e. anatomical image mode/B-mode) of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (paragraph [0077], referring to the anatomical features in the image depicted in Figure 4, wherein, as is well known in the art, B-mode is the standard anatomical imaging mode for ultrasound; Figures 4, 10).
With regards to claim 4, Dickie discloses that the range that is used to generate the ultrasound image and that is a target of the setting defines a range of reception signals subjected to calculation for generating an image of a specific display mode (i.e. anatomical image mode/B-mode) of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (paragraph [0084], referring to the transmit beamformer parameters that can be adjusted include “Field of view (FOV): the sizes of the areas represented by the obtained images”, wherein the FOV represents a set range used to generate the ultrasound image; paragraph [0077], referring to the anatomical features in the image depicted in Figure 4, wherein, as is well known in the art, B-mode is the standard anatomical imaging mode for ultrasound; Figures 4, 10).
With regards to claims 9 and 10, Dickie discloses that the range that is used to generate the ultrasound image and that is the target of the setting is a scanning range with the ultrasound beam for B-mode tomographic image display (paragraph [0084], referring to the transmit beamformer parameters that can be adjusted include “Field of view (FOV): the sizes of the areas represented by the obtained images”, wherein the FOV represents a set range used to generate the ultrasound image; paragraph [0077], referring to the anatomical features in the image depicted in Figure 4, wherein, as is well known in the art, B-mode is the standard anatomical imaging mode for ultrasound; Figures 4, 10).
With regards to claim 11, Dickie discloses that the processor is configured to set the range that is used to generate the ultrasound image based on the designated point (i.e. mark 410 where user taps) on the ultrasound image displayed on the screen (paragraph [0067], referring to referring to the mark 410 which corresponds to a new desired focal point tapped by a user directly on the ultrasound image feed 402; paragraph [0084], referring to field of view (FOV) being a parameter that can be adjusted and manipulated; Figure 4).
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) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickie as applied to claims 3 and 4 above, and further in view of Weber et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0330076).
With regards to claims 5-6 and 7-8, as discussed above, Dickie meets the limitations of claims 3 and 4. With regards to claims 5-6, Dickie further discloses that the range that is used to generate the ultrasound image and that is the target of the setting a sample volume for an ultrasound image mode display (paragraph [0038], referring to the ultrasound data being in any format, including a three-dimensional grid, and thus can provide a sample volume; paragraph [0084], referring to the transmit beamformer parameters that can be adjusted include “Field of view (FOV): the sizes of the areas represented by the obtained images”, wherein the FOV represents a set range used to generate the ultrasound image; Figures 4 and 10). With regards to claims 7-8, Dickie discloses that the range that is used to generate the ultrasound image and that is the target of the setting is an ROI that is a range for an ultrasound image mode display (paragraph [0084], referring to the transmit beamformer parameters that can be adjusted include “Field of view (FOV): the sizes of the areas represented by the obtained images”, wherein the FOV represents an area/ROI that is a range for an ultrasound image mode display).
However, Dickie does not specifically disclose that the ultrasound image mode display is a pulsed or color Doppler display.
Weber et al. disclose an ultrasound imaging system comprising a display for displaying a received ultrasound image and a user interface is provided for receiving user commands for controlling the ultrasound imaging process, and it receives a user input which identifies a point or region of the displayed ultrasound image (Abstract; paragraphs [0085], [0087]; Figures 1-2). Processed signals are coupled to a B-mode processor and a Doppler processor, wherein the Doppler processor processes temporally distinct signals from tissue movement and blood flow for the detection of the motion of substances, such as the flow of blood cells in the image field (paragraphs [0126]-[0127]). The scan converter can overlay a B-mode structural image with colors corresponding to motion at points in the image field with their Doppler-estimated velocities to produce a color Doppler image which depicts the motion of tissue and blood flow in the image field (paragraph [0130]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the ultrasound image mode display further comprise a pulsed or color Doppler display, as taught by Weber et al., in order to provide tissue movement and blood flow information for the detection of the motion of substances, such as the flow of blood cells in the image field, which increases the diagnostic value of the system (paragraphs [0126]-[0127]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickie as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hansen et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0337678).
With regards to claim 12, as discussed above, Dickie meets the limitations of claim 2. However, Dickie does not disclose that the processor is configured to receive information on two points designated on the ultrasound image displayed on the screen; and enlarge or reduce the range in a case in which a distance between the two designated points is increased or decreased over time.
Hansen et al. disclose systems and methods for controlling visualization of ultrasound image data, wherein a sequence of user interface interactions can occur for receiving input to increase the sector angle (i.e. range) of a sector image during ultrasound imaging (Abstract; paragraph [0106]; Figures 8A-8C). Two touch points for a pinch gesture input may be initiated at touchpoints (812a), wherein the pinch-out gesture is initiated from touch points (812a) in Figure 8A and extended to touchpoints (812b) in Figure 8B (paragraphs [0108]-[0109]; Figures 8A-C). In response, the touchscreen may display a transitional view during the continuous contact that provides previews 820 of the desired sector angle for the sector image, wherein, as depicted in Figure 8B, the live ultrasound image feed (805a) is continuously updated to provide an outline of the increased sector angle (shown in dotted outline in fig. 8B), and the outline may increase with the length of the pinch-out gesture (paragraph [0110]; Figures 8A-C). Figure 8C depicts an example view of the ultrasound image feed that has been updated after the sector angle imaging parameter has been modified based on preview shown in Figure 8B, wherein the wider sector angle allows additional structures previously not viewable in the narrower sector angle of Figures 8A,B to become viewable (paragraph [0113]; Figures 8A-C, note that two points (812a,812b) are designed on the ultrasound image and the range is enlarged/reduced in which a distance between the two points is increased or decreased over time).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the processor of Dickie be configured to receive information on two points designated on the ultrasound image displayed on the screen; and enlarge or reduce the range in a case in which a distance between the two designated points is increased or decreased over time, as taught by Hansen et al., in order to increase the sector angle (i.e. range) of a sector image during ultrasound imaging, thereby controlling what structures are viewable or not viewable (paragraphs [0106], [0113]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 13-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 19/380,997 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 13-15 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in claims 1-2 of the reference application. That is, claims 1-2 of the reference application falls entirely within the scope of instant claims 1 and 13-15, or in other words, instant claims 1 and 13-15 are anticipated by claims 1-2 of the reference application. Specifically, because claims 1-2 of the reference application claims the same steps and structure (i.e. receiving information on a position (inherently corresponding to a “point”) on an ultrasound image displayed on a screen, determine, for the position of intersection/point designated on the ultrasound image, a depth in a scanning coordinate system of an ultrasound beam, which comprises, performing coordinate conversion of the coordinates of the position/point in the display coordinate system into coordinates in the scanning coordinate system [see claim 2 of the reference application], execute control using the determined depth [which, as set forth in claim 2 of the reference application, is determined using the coordinates of the designated point that have undergone the coordinate conversion], etc.), as claimed in instant claims 1 and 13-15, the invention of instant claims 1 and 13-15 are anticipated by claims 1-2 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koch et al. (US Pub No. 2014/0098049) disclose systems and methods for receiving touch-based input from an operator of an imaging device, wherein based on the received input, the imaging device can update the display of the image (Abstract; paragraph [0045]; Figure 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (ET).
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights