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 .
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 81, 84-93 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 7, 8, 11, 17, 19, and 20 of copending Application No. US 18/655218 (reference application) (hereinafter “App218”) as amended August 31, 2026. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons:
Instant Application
App 218
Notes
Claim 81
Claim 1
Anticipates
Claim 84
Claim 2
Anticipates
Claim 85
Claim 3
Claim 85 is disjunctive, and claim 3 expressly discloses branch (ii) of claim 85
Claim 86
Claim 11
Claim 86 is disjunctive, and claim 11 expressly discloses branch (ii) of claim 86
Claim 87
Claims 18
Anticipates when using claim 17 to anticipate claim 81
Claim 88
Claim 1
Anticipates
Claim 89
Claim 7
Anticipates
Claim 90
Claim 8
Anticipates
Claim 91
Claim 17
Anticipates
Claim 92
Claim 19
Anticipates
Claim 93
Claim 20
Anticipates
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 82 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending App128 in view of Miller et al., (US6542846).
Regarding claim 82, App128 teaches claim 81, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor comprises an internal temperature sensor.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Miller teaches wherein the sensor comprises an internal temperature sensor (col. 4 lines 1-7 temperature sensors for internal components of the ultrasound system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the invention of claim 81 with an internal temperature sensor, as this would prevent reduction in component life, reliability of the device, or cause delays due to shutting down (see Miller Abstract).
Claim 83 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending App128 in view of Gatzke et al., (US5158087).
Regarding claim 83, App128 teaches the method of claim 81, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor comprises an ambient temperature sensor, and the operational data is based on an ambient temperature reading from the ambient temperature sensor.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Gatzke teaches wherein the sensor comprises an ambient temperature sensor (col. 4 temperature sensor measured the ambient temperature of the patient), and the operational data is based on an ambient temperature reading from the ambient temperature sensor (col. 5 lines 19-42 the ambient temperature is used to determine tissue surface temperature, and if it exceeds a threshold, a warning is provided to reduce the power).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the invention of App 128 with the ambient temperature sensor of Gatzke, as this would reduce large errors by accounting for ambient body temperature (see Gatzke col. 1 line 65 – col. 2 line 3).
Claim 94 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of copending App128 in view of Lavin et al., (US20120157843A1).
Regarding claim 94, App128 teaches the invention of claim 91, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more medical devices comprises one or more ultrasound imaging probes.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Lavin teaches wherein the one or more medical devices comprises one or more ultrasound imaging probes ([0019] the ultrasound system includes a probe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to substitute the ultrasound imaging device of App 128 with the ultrasound imaging probe of Lavin, as both inventions relate to ultrasound imaging system, and would yield the predictable result of an ultrasound system using an ultrasound imaging probe to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would be able to perform such a substitution, and the results of modified Miller using an ultrasound imaging probe are reasonably predictable.
Claim 95 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of copending App128 in view of Miller.
Regarding claim 95, App128 teaches the system of claim 91, wherein but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more medical procedures comprises a plurality of imaging scans.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Miller teaches wherein the one or more medical procedures comprises a plurality of imaging scans (col. 6 lines 30-32 the image is considered a series of scan lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the invention of claim 81 with an internal temperature sensor, as this would prevent reduction in component life, reliability of the device, or cause delays due to shutting down (see Miller Abstract).
Claims 96-99 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of copending App128 in view of Wesselius et al., (US6370226B1).
Regarding claim 96, claim 20 of App 128 teaches a system (claim 17 “ultrasound imaging system”), the system comprising one or more medical imaging devices comprising a sensor (claim 17 “one or more medical imaging devices each having a processor and a senso”), a plurality of operational modes (claim 20 “herein the imaging device comprises a plurality of operational modes,”), and an operational shut-off limit causing the one or more medical imaging devices to cease operation in response to the sensor (claim 17 “maximum shut-off temperature”), wherein a system processor and a memory are configured to receive a reading from the sensor (claim 17 “one or more medical imaging devices each having a processor and a sensor; and a controller device having a program stored in memory, the program comprising instructions for” “receiving operational data from the sensor ”) and perform an algorithm to provide a operational capability prediction of the one or more medical imaging devices based on the reading, a selected operational mode, and a selected medical procedure (claim 17 “calculating a capability estimation that represents a runtime period or rest state period of the one or more medical imaging devices, related to the selection of one or more medical procedures to be performed using the one or more medical devices, that is based on a model that uses the operating parameter and the operational data”; claim 20 “calculating the capability estimation is based on an operational mode of each of the one or more imaging devices”).
However, App128 fails to explicitly disclose real time operational capability prediction.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Wesselius teaches real time operational capability prediction (col. 3 lines 17-33 each time the parameter value is changed, the validity is reevaluated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of App128 with the capability prediction of Wesselius, as this would allow for early detection for feasibility issues, and thus diminish delays and improve efficiency of the planning the scans (see Wesselius col. 60-67).
Regarding claim 97, modified App128 teaches the invention of claim 96, wherein the operational capability prediction comprises a calculated answer as to whether the medical imaging device can complete the medical imaging scan.
In the same medical imaging field of endeavor, Wesselius teaches wherein the operational capability prediction comprises a calculated answer as to whether the medical imaging device can complete the medical imaging scan (col. 3 lines 17-41 the system provides feedback on the validity of selected parameter values such as heating/cooling of the device; col 3 line 58 - col 4 line 5 the system calculates feasibility levels based on the parameter values, such as if the thermal load on the tube would be too high).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of modified Miller with the capability prediction of Wesselius, as this would allow for early detection for feasibility issues, and thus diminish delays and improve efficiency of the planning the scans (see Wesselius col. 60-67).
Regarding claim 98, modified App128 teaches the invention of claim 96, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein App128 further teaches wherein the shut-off limit comprises a maximum allowable temperature of the one or more medical imaging devices (claim 17“maximum shut-off temperature”).
Regarding claim 99, modified App128 teaches the invention of claim 96, wherein App128 further teaches wherein the sensor comprises a temperature sensor (claim 17 “receiving operational data from the sensor”; “the operational data comprising a temperature reading”).
Claim 100 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of copending App128 in view of Wesselius and further in view of Sundararajan et al., (US11200989B1).
Regarding claim 100, modified App128 teaches the invention of claim 96, but fails to explicitly disclose a real-time prediction displayed to a user of the medical imaging on a display.
In the same medical imaging field of endeavor, Wesselius teaches a real-time prediction (col. 3 lines 17-41 the system provides feedback on the validity of selected parameter values such as heating/cooling of the device; col 3 line 58 - col 4 line 5 the system calculates feasibility levels based on the parameter values, such as if the thermal load on the tube would be too high) displayed to a user of the medical imaging on a display (col. 4 lines 16-21 the system has a display that can display the feasibility level).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of modified App128 with the capability prediction of Wesselius, as this would allow for early detection for feasibility issues, and thus diminish delays and improve efficiency of the planning the scans (see Wesselius col. 60-67).
However, the combination of references fails to explicitly disclose a diagnostic prediction displayed to a user of the medical imaging on a display.
In a reference reasonably pertinent problem of equipment performance monitor faced by the inventor, Sundararajan teaches a diagnostic prediction (col. 6 lines 1-24 historical performance data are used to predict operating performance, including a normal operating performance profile) displayed to a user of the medical imaging on a display (col. 6 line 5-6 the predicted performance can be displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the displaying of the real time prediction of modified App128 with the diagnostic prediction displaying of Sundararajan, as this would allow for the identification of performance degradation (see col. 7 lines 49-53).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 81-100 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 81 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes, the claim recites a method and is therefore a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes, the claims recite “determining an operating parameter based on the imaging device based on the selected medical procedure” and “calculating a capability estimation, related to the selected medical procedure to be performed using the imaging device, that is based on the operating parameter and the operational data”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation (BRI), covers an abstract idea, more specifically a process that can be performed in the human mind. That is, nothing in the listed claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed with the aid of a pen and paper, and/or performing the process in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No, the claim further recites the additional limitations: “A method for estimating operational capabilities of an ultrasound imaging device, the method comprising: at a computing device that includes one or more processors and memory associated with the ultrasound imaging device: receiving a selection of a medical procedure; receiving operational data from a sensor of the imaging device; and outputting the capability estimation to a user.”
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No, Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional claim limitations merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 82 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes, for the same reasons as claim 81
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes, for the same reason as claim 81
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No, the claim recites the additional claim limitation of “wherein the sensor comprises an internal temperature sensor.”
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No, Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional claim limitations merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 83 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes, for the same reasons as claim 81
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes, for the same reason as claim 81
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No, the claim recites the additional claim limitation of “wherein the sensor comprises an ambient temperature sensor, and the operational data is based on an ambient temperature reading from the ambient temperature sensor.”
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No, Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional claim limitations merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 84 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes, for the same reasons as claim 81
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes, for the same reason as claim 81
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No, the claim recites the additional claim limitation of “further comprising receiving a mode input based on a desired operating mode of the imaging device.”
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No, Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional claim limitations merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 85 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes, for the same reasons as claim 81
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes, for the same reason as claim 81
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No, the claim recites the additional claim limitation of “wherein the outputting the capability estimation (i) is performed before the imaging device is used to perform the medical procedure or (ii) updates while the imaging device is used to perform the medical procedure.”
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No, Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional claim limitations merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 86 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes, for the same reasons as claim 81
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes, for the same reasons as claim 81.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No, the claim recites the additional claim limitation of “herein the receiving a selection comprises (i) presenting a plurality of medical procedures from which the medical procedure is selected or (ii) receiving a selected series of medical procedures.”
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No, Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional claim limitations merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 87 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes, for the same reasons as claim 81
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes, the claim recites ““wherein the determining the operating parameter comprises determining at least one of a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the imaging device, a temperature profile of the imaging device, a scan run time, a maximum operating temperature of the imaging device, a cool-down time, a battery power consumption rate of the imaging device, a battery power level of the imaging device, a battery power level of the electronic device, a battery power consumption rate of an electronic device used in conjunction with the imaging device, a minimum power level of the imaging device, a minimum power level of the electronic device, a battery recharge rate of the imaging device, or a battery recharge rate of the electronic device”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation (BRI), covers an abstract idea, more specifically a process that can be performed in the human mind. That is, nothing in the listed claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed with the aid of a pen and paper, and/or performing the process in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No, the claim does not recite further claim limitations. For these reasons, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No, Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, no additional claim elements are recited.
Claim 88 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes, for the same reasons as claim 81
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes, for the same reason as claim 81
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No, the claim recites the additional claim limitation of “wherein the receiving operational data comprises receiving a temperature reading of the imaging device.”
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No, Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional claim limitations merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 89 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes, for the same reasons as claim 81
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes, for the same reason as claim 81
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No, the claim recites the additional claim limitation of “further comprising receiving an estimate of how long the imaging device needs to be in a rest state before the imaging device can be used to complete the medical procedure.”
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No, Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional claim limitations merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 90 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes, for the same reasons as claim 81
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes, the claims recite “determining a second operating parameter of a second imaging device based on the selected medical procedure;” and “calculating a second capability estimation, related to the selected medical procedure to be performed using the second imaging device, that is based on the second operating parameter and the second operational data”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation (BRI), covers an abstract idea, more specifically a process that can be performed in the human mind. That is, nothing in the listed claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed with the aid of a pen and paper, and/or performing the process in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No, the claim further recites the additional limitations: “receiving second operational data from a sensor of the second imaging device”, “receiving second operational data from the sensor of each of the one or more medical devices;”, and “and outputting the second capability estimation to the user.”
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No, Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional claim limitations merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 91 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes, the claim recites a method and is therefore a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes, the claims recite “determining an operating parameter of each of the one or more medical devices based on the selection of one or more medical procedures” and “calculating a capability estimation, related to the selection of one or more medical procedures to be performed using the one or more medical devices, that is based on the operating parameter and the operational data of each of the one or more medical devices;”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation (BRI), covers an abstract idea, more specifically a process that can be performed in the human mind. That is, nothing in the listed claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed with the aid of a pen and paper, and/or performing the process in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No, the claim further recites the additional limitations: “An ultrasound imaging system comprising: one or more medical imaging devices each having a processor and a sensor; and a controller device having a program stored in memory, the program comprising instructions for: receiving a selection of one or more medical procedures;”, “receiving operational data from the sensor of each of the one or more medical devices;”, and “outputting the capability estimation to a user.”
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No, Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional claim limitations merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 92 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes, for the same reasons as claim 91
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes, the claims recite “wherein the controller is configured to coordinate a treatment protocol for a single patient or for multiple patients in which the one or more medical procedures is performed using a plurality of medical devices”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation (BRI), covers an abstract idea, more specifically a process that can be performed in the human mind. That is, nothing in the listed claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed with the aid of a pen and paper, and/or performing the process in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No, the claim does not further recite additional claim limitations.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No, Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, no additional claim elements are recited.
Claim 93 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes, for the same reasons as claim 91
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes, the claims recite “calculating the capability estimation is also based on an operational mode of each of the one or more imaging devices”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation (BRI), covers an abstract idea, more specifically a process that can be performed in the human mind. That is, nothing in the listed claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed with the aid of a pen and paper, and/or performing the process in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No, the claim recites the additional claim elements “wherein the imaging device comprises a plurality of operational modes”.
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No, Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, no additional claim elements are recited.
Claim 94 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes, for the same reasons as claim 91
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes, for the same reason as claim 91
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No, the claim recites the additional claim elements “wherein the one or more medical devices comprises one or more ultrasound imaging probes”.
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No, Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional claim limitations merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 95 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes, for the same reasons as claim 91
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes, for the same reason as claim 91
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No, the claim recites the additional claim elements “wherein the one or more medical procedures comprises a plurality of imaging scans”.
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No, Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional claim limitations merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 96 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes, the claim recites a method and is therefore a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes, the claims recite “perform an algorithm to provide a real- time operational capability prediction of the one or more medical imaging devices based on the reading, a selected operational mode, and a selected medical procedure”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation (BRI), covers an abstract idea, more specifically a process that can be performed in the human mind. That is, nothing in the listed claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed with the aid of a pen and paper, and/or performing the process in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No, the claim further recites the additional limitations: “A system for avoiding downtime during a medical imaging scan, the system comprising one or more medical imaging devices comprising a sensor, a plurality of operational modes, and an operational shut-off limit causing the one or more medical imaging devices to cease operation in response to the sensor, wherein a system processor and a memory are configured to receive a reading from the sensor”
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No, Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional claim limitations merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 97 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes, for the same reasons as claim 96
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes, the claim recites “wherein the operational capability prediction comprises a calculated answer as to whether the medical imaging device can complete the medical imaging scan”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation (BRI), covers an abstract idea, more specifically a process that can be performed in the human mind. That is, nothing in the listed claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed with the aid of a pen and paper, and/or performing the process in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No, the claim does not recite additional limitations. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No, Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, claim does not recite additional claim limitations.
Claim 98 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes, for the same reasons as claim 96
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes, for the same reasons as claim 96
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the shut-off limit comprises a maximum allowable temperature of the one or more medical imaging devices or a battery power level of the one or more medical imaging devices”
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No, Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional claim limitations merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 99 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes, for the same reasons as claim 96
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes, for the same reasons as claim 96
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the sensor comprises a temperature sensor or a battery power sensor.”
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No, Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional claim limitations merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 100 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes, for the same reasons as claim 96
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes, for the same reasons as claim 96
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No, the claim recites the limitation “wherein a diagnostic prediction and a real-time prediction are displayed to a user of the medical imaging device on a display.”
These elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No, Similarly to Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional claim limitations merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 81, 82, 84-88, 91, 93-96, 98, and 99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al., (US6542846B1) in view of Lavin et al., (US20120157843A1).
Regarding claim 81, Miller teaches A method for estimating operational capabilities of an ultrasound imaging device, the method comprising (col. 2 system that has an indication of system temperature to make sure the system does not overheat):
at a computing device that includes one or more processors and memory associated with the ultrasound imaging device (col. 8 lines 39-52 process and memory used with the transducer):
determining an operational parameter of the imaging device (col. 6 lines 9-19 the thermal management controller modifies system parameters, including different image modes that consume different amounts of power)
receiving operational data from a sensor of the imaging device (col. 4 lines 1-4 temperature sensors monitor temperatures of the ultrasound system)
calculating a capability estimation, related to the selected medical procedure to be performed using the imaging device, that is based on the operating parameter and the operational data (col. 4 line 59- col. 5 line 3 the software model determines how much the external temperature will increase based on the internal temperature of the casing, internal temperature, and casing material; col. 9 line 63 - col. 10 line 30 the system calculates a modeled value of the average detected temperatures, and compares to critical temperature levels, and then determines if the ultrasound system is approaching unacceptable temperature level.); and
outputting the capability estimation to a user (col. 10 lines 23-25 an icon is displayed indicating the system is approaching unacceptable temperatures).
However, Miller is silent regarding receiving a selection of a medical procedure; an operating parameter of the imaging device based on the selected medical procedure.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Lavin teaches receiving a selection of a medical procedure ([0031] the user selects the medical procedure to perform); determining an operational parameter of the imaging device based on the selected medical procedure ([0033] the processor accesses the database to determine the best system parameters such as acquisition mode that best fits the medical procedure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Miller with the selection and application of an acquisition mode as taught by Lavin, as this would optimize the imaging parameters by avoiding any confusion by the user (see Lavin [0044]).
Regarding claim 82, modified Miller teaches the method of claim 81, wherein Miller further teaches wherein the sensor comprises an internal sensor (col. 4 lines 4-16 the temperature sensors are mounted in or round the components, such as the integrated circuits).
Regarding claim 84, modified Miller teaches the method of claim 81, wherein Miller further teaches receiving a mode input based on a desired operating mode of the imaging device (col. 3 lines 5-11 the system includes operator input controls to select various known operating modes).
Regarding claim 85, modified Miller teaches the method of claim 81, wherein Miller further teaches wherein the outputting the capability estimation (ii) updates while the imaging device is used to perform the medical procedure (col. 9 lines 31-33 the system temperatures are monitored throughout operation of the ultrasound system; col. 10 lines 5-30 the system determines if the ultrasound system is approaching unacceptable temperature level during an operation).
Regarding claim 86, modified Miller teaches the method of claim 81, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the receiving a selection comprises (i) presenting a plurality of medical procedures from which the medical procedure is selected.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Lavin teaches wherein the receiving a selection comprises (i) presenting a plurality of medical procedures from which the medical procedure is selected ([0031] the user selects the medical procedure from a list of procedures)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Miller with the selection of a medical procedure as taught by Lavin, as this would optimize the imaging parameters by avoiding any confusion by the user (see Lavin [0044]).
Regarding claim 87, modified Miller teaches the method of claim 81, wherein Miller further teaches wherein the operating parameter comprises determining at least one of a maximum operating temperature of the imaging device (col. 9 lines 34-47 the critical temperatures A, B, C, D dictate the types of control performed; col. 10 lines 28-30 if the temperature is greater than D, the ultrasound system turns off, so therefore level D is the maximum operating temperature).
Regarding claim 88, modified Miller teaches the method of claim 81, wherein Miller further teaches wherein the receiving operational data comprises receiving a temperature reading of the imaging device (col. 4 lines 1-4 temperature sensors monitor temperatures of the ultrasound system).
Regarding claim 91, Miller teaches An ultrasound imaging system comprising: (col. 2 system that has an indication of system temperature to make sure the system does not overheat):
one or more medical imaging devices each having a processor and a sensor (col. 8 lines 39-52 process and memory used with the transducer); and
a controller device having a program stored in memory, the program comprising instructions for (col. 5 lines 11-18 thermal management controller)
determining an operational parameter of the imaging device (col. 4 line 59 - col. 5 line 3 the temperatures of the IC/battery are monitored, as there is a correlation between amount of internal power dissipation and temperature; col. 6 lines 9-19 different image modes use different parameters such as amounts of power used)
receiving operational data from a sensor of the imaging device (col. 4 lines 1-4 temperature sensors monitor temperatures of the ultrasound system)
calculating a capability estimation, related to the selected medical procedure to be performed using the imaging device, that is based on the operating parameter and the operational data (col. 4 line 59- col. 5 line 2 the software model determines how much the external temperature will increase based on the internal temperature of the casing; col. 9 line 63 - col. 10 line 30 the system calculates a value of the average detected temperatures, and compares to critical temperature levels, and then determines if the ultrasound system is approaching unacceptable temperature level.); and
outputting the capability estimation to a user (col. 10 lines 23-25 an icon is displayed indicating the system is approaching unacceptable temperatures).
However, Miller is silent regarding receiving a selection of a medical procedure; an operating parameter of the imaging device based on the selected medical procedure.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Lavin teaches receiving a selection of a medical procedure ([0031] the user selects the medical procedure to perform); determining an operational parameter of the imaging device based on the selected medical procedure ([0033] the processor accesses the database to determine the best system parameters such as acquisition mode that best fits the medical procedure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Miller with the selection and application of an acquisition mode as taught by Lavin, as this would optimize the imaging parameters by avoiding any confusion by the user (see Lavin [0044]).
Regarding claim 93, modified Miller teaches the system of claim 91 wherein the imaging device comprises a plurality of operational modes (col. 3 lines 5-11 the system can select various operating modes), and the calculating the capability estimation is also based on an operational mode of each of the one or more imaging devices (col. 6 lines 9-19 different image modes use different parameters such as amounts of power used; col. 4 line 59 - col. 5 line 3 the temperatures of the IC/battery are monitored, as there is a correlation between amount of internal power dissipation and temperature; col. 9 line 63 - col. 10 line 30 the system calculates a value of the average detected temperatures, and compares to critical temperature levels, and then determines if the ultrasound system is approaching unacceptable temperature level; therefore, the capability estimation is based on the type of mode, since the mode determines the amount of power, which determines power, which relates to temperature, and thus relates to if the system is approaching unacceptable temperature levels).
Regarding claim 94, modified Miller teaches the system of claim 91, wherein Miller teaches an ultrasonic imaging device, but is silent regarding wherein the one or more medical devices comprises one or more ultrasound imaging probes.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Lavin teaches wherein the one or more medical devices comprises one or more ultrasound imaging probes ([0019] the ultrasound system includes a probe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to substitute the ultrasound imaging device of Miller with the ultrasound imaging probe of Lavin, as both inventions relate to ultrasound imaging system, and would yield the predictable result of an ultrasound system using an ultrasound imaging probe to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would be able to perform such a substitution, and the results of modified Miller using an ultrasound imaging probe are reasonably predictable.
Regarding claim 95, modified Miller teaches the system of claim 91, wherein Miller further teaches wherein the one or more medical procedures comprises a plurality of imaging scans (col. 6 lines 30-32 the image is considered a series of scan lines).
Regarding claim 96, Miller teaches A system for avoiding downtime during a medical imaging scan (col. 2 lines 10-16 system that controls the temperature to prevent shutdown from overheating), the system comprising one or more medical imaging devices (col. 4 lines 1-16 ultrasound system) comprising a sensor (col. 4 lines 1-16 ultrasound system comprises temperature sensors), a plurality of operational modes (col. 3 lines 5-11 the system has a plurality of modes to select), and an operational shut-off limit causing the one or more medical imaging devices to cease operation in response to the sensor (col. 10 lines 27-30 when the temperature reaches level D, the ultrasound system is shut off), wherein a system processor and a memory (col. 8 lines 32-51 memory element stores instructions for polling the temperature sensors, and processor executes those instructions) are configured to receive a reading from the sensor (col. 9 lines 30-33 the temperature sensors sense the system temperatures) and perform an algorithm to provide a real-time (col. 9 lines 30-33 the temperatures are monitored continuously throughout the operation) operational capability prediction of the one or more medical imaging devices based on the reading and a selected operational mode(col. 6 lines 9-19 different image modes use different parameters such as amounts of power used; col. 4 line 59 - col. 5 line 3 the temperatures of the IC/battery are monitored, as there is a correlation between amount of internal power dissipation and temperature; col. 9 line 63 - col. 10 line 30 the system calculates a value of the average detected temperatures, and compares to critical temperature levels, and then determines if the ultrasound system is approaching unacceptable temperature level; therefore, the capability estimation is based on the type of mode, since the mode determines the amount of power, which determines power, which relates to temperature, and thus relates to if the system is approaching unacceptable temperature levels).
However, Miller is silent regarding a selected medical procedure.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Lavin teaches a selected medical procedure ([0031] the user selects the medical procedure to perform)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Miller with the selection of a medical procedure as taught by Lavin, as this would optimize the imaging parameters by avoiding any confusion by the user (see Lavin [0044]).
Regarding claim 98, modified Miller teaches the system of claim 96, wherein Miller further teaches wherein the shut-off limit comprises a maximum allowable temperature of the one or more medical imaging devices (col. 10 lines 27-30 when the temperature reaches level D, the ultrasound system is shut off).
Regarding claim 99, modified Miller teaches the system of claim 96, wherein Miller further teaches wherein the sensor comprises a temperature sensor (col. 4 lines 1-3 temperature sensors are used to monitor the temperature).
Claim 83 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Lavin as applied to claim 81 above, and further in view of Gatzke (US5158087A).
Regarding claim 83, modified Miller teaches the method of claim 81, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor comprises an ambient temperature sensor, and the operational data is based on an ambient temperature reading from the ambient temperature sensor.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Gatzke teaches wherein the sensor comprises an ambient temperature sensor (col. 4 temperature sensor measured the ambient temperature of the patient), and the operational data is based on an ambient temperature reading from the ambient temperature sensor (col. 5 lines 19-42 the ambient temperature is used to determine tissue surface temperature, and if it exceeds a threshold, a warning is provided to reduce the power).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of modified Miller with the ambient temperature sensor of Gatzke, as this would reduce large errors by accounting for ambient body temperature (see Gatzke col. 1 line 65 – col. 2 line 3)
Claim 89 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Lavin as applied to claim 81 above, and further in view of Stoddard et al., (US20170043189A1).
Regarding claim 89, modified Miller teaches the method of claim 81, but fails to explicitly disclose receiving an estimate of how long the imaging device needs to be in a rest state before the imaging device can be used to complete the medical procedure.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Stoddard teaches receiving an estimate of how long the imaging device needs to be in a rest state before the imaging device can be used to complete the medical procedure ([0101] the system is programmed with a cool down time between uses for the device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the imaging device of modified Miller with the cool down time of Stoddard, as this would allow for full heat capacity to be restored (see Stoddard [0101]).
Claim 90 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Lavin as applied to claim 81 above, and further in view of Pelissier et al., (US20160278739A1)
Regarding claim 90, modified Miller teaches claim 81, wherein Miller teaches determining an operational parameter of the imaging device (col. 4 line 59 - col. 5 line 3 the temperatures of the IC/battery are monitored, as there is a correlation between amount of internal power dissipation and temperature; col. 6 lines 9-19 different image modes use different parameters such as amounts of power used) receiving operational data from a sensor of the imaging device (col. 4 lines 1-4 temperature sensors monitor temperatures of the ultrasound system) calculating a capability estimation, related to the selected medical procedure to be performed using the imaging device, that is based on the operating parameter and the operational data (col. 4 line 59- col. 5 line 2 the software model determines how much the external temperature will increase based on the internal temperature of the casing; col. 9 line 63 - col. 10 line 30 the system calculates a value of the average detected temperatures, and compares to critical temperature levels, and then determines if the ultrasound system is approaching unacceptable temperature level.); and outputting the capability estimation to a user (col. 10 lines 23-25 an icon is displayed indicating the system is approaching unacceptable temperatures).
However, Miller is silent regarding an operating parameter of the imaging device based on the selected medical procedure.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Lavin determining an operational parameter of the imaging device based on the selected medical procedure ([0033] the processor accesses the database to determine the best system parameters such as acquisition mode that best fits the medical procedure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Miller with the selection and application of an acquisition mode as taught by Lavin, as this would optimize the imaging parameters by avoiding any confusion by the user (see Lavin [0044]).
However, the combination of references is silent regarding a second imaging device.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Pelissier teaches a second imaging device (fig. 6 the display shows the operating state of multiple ultrasound devices [0116]; [0085] the ultrasound image device list displays the devices ranked based on device selection information, such as capability for a procedure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of modified Miller with the plurality of imaging devices of Pelissier, as this would reduce the time required to start scanning and make the workflow easier (see Pelissier [0124]). One of ordinary skill would understand that using the estimation method as taught by modified Miller with at least a second device would then result in the reading of “determining a second operating parameter of a second imaging device based on the selected medical procedure; receiving second operational data from a sensor of the second imaging device; calculating a second capability estimation, related to the selected medical procedure to be performed using the second imaging device, that is based on the second operating parameter and the second operational data; and outputting the second capability estimation to the user.”
Claim 92 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Lavin as applied to claim 91 above, and further in view of Ishrak et al., (US20200397511A1).
Regarding claim 92, modified Miller teaches the system of claim 91, but fails to explicitly disclose herein the controller is configured to coordinate a treatment protocol for a single patient or for multiple patients in which the one or more medical procedures is performed using a plurality of medical devices.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Ishrak teaches herein the controller is configured to coordinate a treatment protocol for a single patient or for multiple patients in which the one or more medical procedures is performed using a plurality of medical devices ([0085] medicals device are visualized by using ultrasound imaging, meaning there are a plurality of medical devices used for the procedure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of modified Miller with plurality of medical devices used as taught by Ishrak, as this would provide improved visualization (see Ishrak [0165]).
Claim 97 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Lavin as applied to claim 96 above, and further in view of Wesselius et al., (US6370226B1).
Regarding claim 97, modified Miller teaches the system of claim 96, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the operational capability prediction comprises a calculated answer as to whether the medical imaging device can complete the medical imaging scan.
In the same medical imaging field of endeavor, Wesselius teaches wherein the operational capability prediction comprises a calculated answer as to whether the medical imaging device can complete the medical imaging scan (col. 3 lines 17-41 the system provides feedback on the validity of selected parameter values such as heating/cooling of the device; col 3 line 58 - col 4 line 5 the system calculates feasibility levels based on the parameter values, such as if the thermal load on the tube would be too high).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of modified Miller with the capability prediction of Wesselius, as this would allow for early detection for feasibility issues, and thus diminish delays and improve efficiency of the planning the scans (see Wesselius col. 60-67).
Claim 100 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Lavin as applied to claim 96 above, and further in view of Sundararajan et al., (US11200989B1).
Regarding claim 100, modified Miller teaches the invention of claim 96, wherein Miller teaches a real-time prediction (col. 4 line 59-col. line 3 software model determines how much the temperature will increased based on the internal temperature internal power dissipation, and casing material) displayed to a user of the medical imaging on a display (col. 2 lines 20-25 display of the indication of system temperature) but fails to explicitly disclose a diagnostic prediction displayed to a user of the medical imaging on a display.
In a reference reasonably pertinent problem of equipment performance monitor faced by the inventor, Sundararajan teaches a diagnostic prediction (col. 6 lines 1-24 historical performance data are used to predict operating performance, including a normal operating performance profile) displayed to a user of the medical imaging on a display (col. 6 line 5-6 the predicted performance can be displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the display that displays the real time prediction of modified Miller to also display the diagnostic prediction of Sundararajan, as this would allow for the identification of performance degradation (see col. 7 lines 49-53).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y FANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0952. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9:30 am - 6:00pm.
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 5712722714. 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.
/MICHAEL YIMING FANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights