CTNF 16/598,396 CTNF 93337 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-6, 8-14 and 16-20 are 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 – Claim 1 recites “A system for estimating fractional flow reserve (FFR)” and, therefore, is a device; Claim 10 recites “A method for estimating fractional flow reserve (FFR)” and, therefore, is a process; and Claim 18 recites “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer readable program for estimating fractional flow reserve (FFR)” and hence a device. Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: YES - The claims recite the following limitations: “develop a model of a vasculature system based on an observed concentration time profile at locations within the model using contrast dye in the vasculature system and movement of the vasculature system, wherein the observed time profile of concentration is measured using a thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) frame count, which counts a number of cineframes needed for the contrast dye material to reach a landmark; and iteratively tune a velocity field based on an optimization of a cost function that identifies a mismatch between the observed concentration time profile and a computed concentration time profile of the vasculature system at the locations to obtain a best estimate of the velocity field to perform a FFR measurement”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by hand but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the front end application and the dynamic controller and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the front end application and the dynamic controller and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium language, the claim encompasses a user simply obtaining copies of the image data indicating the concentration time profiles at locations of interest and creating a model of vasculature and flow. That is, the limitations direct to generating mathematical equations that can govern flow mechanics of vasculature, so that the mere nominal recitation of a generic network appliance does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites additional elements: front end application, the dynamic controller, the non-transitory computer readable storage medium and receiving images for purposes of generating the model. However, the image reception is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of storing data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The front end application and the dynamic controller and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium that performs the image reception step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the image reception step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the front end application and the dynamic controller). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (front end application and dynamic controller). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea. Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the image reception step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the front end application and the dynamic controller is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs . court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the image reception step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible. Dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-14, 16-17 and 19-20 recite limitations that fail to integrate the mental steps of claims 1, 10 and 18 into a practical application. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Farouk A Bruce whose telephone number is (408)918-7603. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8-5pm PST. 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (571) 272-7230. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /FAROUK A BRUCE/Examiner, Art Unit 3793 Application/Control Number: 16/598,396 Page 2 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 16/598,396 Page 3 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 16/598,396 Page 4 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 16/598,396 Page 5 Art Unit: 3797
Prosecution Insights