DETAILED ACITON
This Office action is responsive to communications filed on 11/07/2025. Claims 1-5, 8, 10-11, 13-14, 16, & 18-19 have been amended. Claim 6 & 15 previously canceled. Presently, Claims 1-5, 7-14, & 16-21 remain pending and are hereinafter examined on the merits.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Previous objection to the Abstract is withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 11/07/2025
Previous objection to the FIG. 2 is withdrawn in view of the replacement sheet filed on 11/07/2025
Previous rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 11/07/2025.
Previous rejection directed to claim 2, 3, 5, 16, 18-19, under 35 USC § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 11/07/2025.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner directs the Applicant’s attention provided in the Office Action regarding the grounds for rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 in view of the amendments filed on 11/07/2025. Specifically, the Examiner response is set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 below.
Examiners Notes
Claims 1-5, 7-14, & 16-21, though rejected under 35 U.S.C § 101, 35 USC § 112(a), & 35 USC § 112(b) are not rejected under the prior arts. The claims are statutorily ineligible for indication of allowable subject matter. Note; a change in scope in view of the requested corrections will require further search and consideration.
Furthermore, Applicant is reminded of manner of making amendment in application according to 37 C.F.C. 1.121.(c). Amendments to claim 4 and claim 13 in the claims filed on 11/07/2025 does not mark each amendment added/deleted.
Claim 4:
Claims filed on 01/14/2025, Claim 4: line 6: “extract further details from the angiographic image”, was presented.
Claims filed on 11/07/2025, Claim 4: line 6 “extract further adding
The term “adding” was not previously recited in the claims filed on 01/14/2025, and thus the added subject matter is not shown by underlining the added text.
Claim 13:
Claims filed on 01/14/2025, Claim 13: line 10, the recitation of “detecting a location of the part of the interventional device in the vasculature map;”, was presented.
Claims filed on 11/07/2025, the recitation was deleted and appropriate markings of the deletion were not indicated.
The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived; See MPEP 714,II,C,(A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, & 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 1-5, 7-12 are drawn to a “system” which describes one of the four statutory categories, i.e., a machine.
Claims 13, 16-18 are directed to a “method” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process.
Claims 14, 19-21 are drawn to a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” which describes one of the four statutory categories, i.e., a manufacture.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One:
Claim 1 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “mathematical concepts” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I.), & the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), substantially as follows:
“ detect a location of the part of the interventional device in the vasculature map;
detect that the location of the part of the interventional device comprises a branching-off location by performing segmentation on the real-time image to identify the part of the interventional device, wherein performing segmentation includes employing convolutional networks, wherein the branching-off location comprises a secondary vessel of the vasculature structure, wherein the secondary vessel is absent from the vasculature presentation shown in the vasculature map;
compare, based on the performance of the segmentation, a segmented representation of the interventional device with the vasculature map to detect whether the part of the interventional device lays outside the vasculature shown in the vasculature map: and ”
Claim 13 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “mathematical concepts” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I.), & the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), substantially as follows:
“ detecting that the location of the part of the interventional device comprises a branching-off location by performing segmentation on the real-time image to identify the part of the interventional device, wherein performing segmentation includes employing convolutional networks, wherein the branching-off location comprises a secondary vessel of the vasculature structure, wherein the secondary vessel is absent from the vasculature presentation shown in the vasculature map;
comparing, based on the performance of the segmentation, a segmented representation of the interventional device with the vasculature map to detect whether the part of the interventional device lays outside the vasculature shown in the vasculature map; and ”
Claim 14 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “mathematical concepts” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I.), & the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), substantially as follows:
“ detect a location of the part of the interventional device in the vasculature map;
detect that the location of the part of the interventional device comprises a branching-off location by performing segmentation on the real-time image to identify the part of the interventional device, wherein performing segmentation includes employing convolutional networks, wherein the branching-off location comprises a secondary vessel of the vasculature structure, wherein the secondary vessel is absent from the vasculature presentation shown in the vasculature map;
compare, based on the performance of the segmentation, a segmented representation of the interventional device with the vasculature map to detect whether the part of the interventional device lays outside the vasculature shown in the vasculature map; and ”
For each claim (1, 13, 14) the above recited steps can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper to perform the steps. Claim 1, the operations they rely on mathematical operation of image data and evaluation of that data accordingly, the recited “performing segmentation includes the use of convolutional networks, which reflects mathematical procedures that parses an image into differentiated regions and applies numerical transformations characteristics of math. This is a mathematical construct because the segmentation step fundamentally consists of computationally applying metrics, weighting schemes, and classification threshold to an image in order to define the instrument to its surrounding. The claim then describes a segmented representation with a vasculature map to determine whether the device lies inside or outside the image. This comparison requires evaluation between two structures to determine deviation is a mathematical evaluation of the image. At the same time, the limitations describe acts that parallel what a human operator could perform mentally. A physician examining a map and a current image could visually isolate the device, discern whether it lies in a vessel not shown on the map, and recognize that the device position/orientation indicates a branching-off location. These steps coupled with the mathematical operations of employing convolutional networks amount to perceiving a feature in an image, mentally distinguishing the structure from its surroundings, judging its positional relationship to the map. Hence, the recited detection and comparison steps therefore describe mathematical concepts coupled with cognitive task of observation and correlation that can be carried out through mathematical and mental processing. There is nothing recited in the claim to suggest an undue level of complexity. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea of “a mental process”, (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.) and “mathematical concepts” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I.).
Prong Two: Claims (1, 13, 14) do not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites (1) additional steps of “obtain a vasculature map of a region of interest with a vasculature presentation of a vasculature structure, wherein the vasculature presentation includes a primary vessel of the vasculature structure; obtain a real-time image of the region of interest during navigation of the interventional device in the vasculature structure, wherein a part of the interventional device is at least partly visible in the real-time image when inserted within the vasculature structure in the region of interest; overlay the vasculature map and the real-time image;”-(claim 1), “providing a vasculature map of a region of interest with a vasculature presentation of a vasculature structure, wherein the vasculature presentation includes a primary vessel of the vasculature structure; receiving a real-time image of the region of interest during navigation of the interventional device in the vasculature structure, wherein a part of the interventional device is at least partly visible in the real-time image when inserted within the vasculature structure in the region of interest; overlaying the vasculature map and the real-time image;”-(claim 13), “provide a vasculature map of a region of interest with a vasculature presentation of a vasculature structure, wherein the vasculature presentation includes a primary vessel of the vasculature structure; receive a real-time image of the region of interest during navigation of the interventional device in the vasculature structure, wherein a part of an interventional device is at least partly visible in the real-time image when inserted within the vasculature structure in the region of interest; overlay the vasculature map and the real-time image;”-(claim 14); (2) the additional step of including “update the vasculature map to include the second vessel presentation to the vasculature map at the branching-off location.”-(claim 1), “updating vasculature map to include the second vessel at the branching-off location.”-(claim 13), “update the vasculature map to include the second at the branching-off location.”-(claim 14)
The steps in (1) represent merely data gathering or insignificant pre-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality with conventionally used tools (see below Step IIB for further details). Data gathering and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05 (f and g)). Regarding the processor language written at such a high level of generality of structural limitations, the processor language amounts to a generic computer component with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
The step in (2) represents merely outputting abstract idea on a display and is recited at a high level of generality. The step of updating the vasculature map to include the second vessel at the branching-off location does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it merely reflects the presentation of the results of the mental and mathematical analysis, rather than any technological transformation of the underlying system. Specifically, the claim does not recite any specific manner of updating the map, any constraints on the data, or any technical improvement to image processing, navigation accuracy, or computer performance “itself”. Instead, the step provides only conceptual instruction to alter the map to reflect a desired outcome of the earlier detection and comparison operations.
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea and to output a notification based on the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on conventionally used tools. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the estimated bio-information is not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, there is no evidence of record that would support the assertion that this step is an improvement to a computer or technological solution to a technological problem. Ultimately, the Applicant’s describe an improvement in the process of surgical guidance using a processor/a non-transitory computer readable medium to perform the imaging techniques, but this is not an improvement in the function of a computer or other technology (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(ii); “the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology”; See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); 2106.05(a); and 2106.05(f)). The claims are directed to the abstract idea. Also, there does not appear to be any particular structure or machine, treatment or prophylaxis, transformation, or any other meaningful application that would render the claim eligible at step 2A, prong 2.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims (1, 13, 14) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite additional steps of sending a probe beam and receiving the probe beam from structures of the eye, and outputting the information. These steps represents mere data gathering, data outputting and/or insignificant pre-extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, as discussed above, limitations with respect to the processor languages/terms, respectively, amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept. The data gathering steps that were considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two, have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
As an evidence, Ohishi (US 2015/0150527 A1) discloses:
¶0005, ‘[0005] For example, in the field of catheter treatment, a technique called 3D road mapping is known. 3D road mapping is a technique of reconstructing a catheter image from object images acquired in real time by a biplane X-ray imaging apparatus or stereoscopic X-ray imaging apparatus and superimposing/displaying the reconstructed catheter image and a 3D blood vessel image. This technique allows the user to see in real time how a catheter moves in a blood vessel. Highly accurate treatments can therefore be expected.’
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims
The following dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and, therefore, recite an abstract idea for similar reasons:
defining wherein the processor is configured to: detect a relevant vascular point or area for the branching-off location in the vasculature map; transfer the relevant vascular point or area as a relevance location of the branching-off location to an angiographic image that forms a basis for the vasculature map; and extract further adding details visual representation information from the angiographic image in the relevance location. (claim 4)
defining detect a footprint the segmented representation of the interventional device in the current real-time image; and transfer the footprint the segmented representation of the interventional device to the vasculature map for the indication of the branching-off location.. (claim 8). Regarding the processor language merely amounts to the data gathering steps and post-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
defining detecting a relevant vascular point or area for the branching-off location in the vasculature map; transferring the relevant vascular point or area as a relevance location of the branching- off location to an angiographic image that forms a basis for the vasculature map; and extracting further details from the angiographic image in the relevance location. (claim 17, claim 20)
The following dependent claims merely further describe the extra-solution activities and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons:
describing wherein the indication detection of the branching-off location comprises a warning marker that visually identifies the branching-off location in the vasculature map. (claim 2)
describing wherein, wherein, to provide the indication the warning marker of the branching-off location, the processor is configured to fine-tune the vasculature map in a predetermined area around the branching-off location based on an angiographic image used to form the vasculature map by detecting detailed vasculature structures in the predetermined area around the branching-off location in the angiographic image and adding details visual representation information of the detected detailed vasculature structure to the vasculature map to provide an improved vasculature map. (claim 3). Regarding the processor language merely amounts to the data gathering steps and post-solution activity which are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
describing wherein the processor is configured to extract a binary vasculature map as the vasculature map, in which vessels are shown as outlines wherein the vessels include the primary vessel and the secondary vessel. (claim 5)
describing wherein the processor is configured to extract a binary vasculature map as the vasculature map, in which vessels are shown as outlines. (claim 18, claim 21)
describing wherein the vasculature map is a coronary roadmap of coronary vessels of a coronary vasculature structure. (claim 7).
describing further comprising a display configured to present the adapted vasculature map. (claim 9) Regarding the displaying information on a monitor although it cannot performed in the human mind; hence, it is not part of the abstract idea. However, it is not a practical application either. It is merely an insignificant post-solution activity. In addition, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
describing further comprising: an X-ray imaging device configured to provide the real-time image data of the region of interest of the vasculature structure. (claim 10) The claim amounts to the data gathering steps and pre-solution solution activity which are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
describing wherein the X-ray imaging device is configured to provide an X-ray image as the real-time image of the region of interest and a contrast injected X-ray image as an angiographic image of the vasculature structure for the vasculature map. (claim 11) The claim amounts to the data gathering steps and pre-solution solution activity which are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
describing further comprising: fine-tuning the vasculature map in a predetermined area around the branching-off location based on an angiographic image used to form the vasculature map by detecting detailed vasculature structures in the predetermined area around the branching-off location in the angiographic image and adding details of the detected detailed vasculature structure to the vasculature map to provide an improved vasculature map. (claim 16, claim 19) The claim amounts to the data gathering steps and post-solution activity which are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
describing wherein the interventional device is configured to be moved in a steerable manner within the vasculature structure, (claim 12), amounts to the data gathering steps and pre-solution solution activity which are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized. Note; the interventional device is not an actively recited device of the system, such that the interventional device configured to move in a steerable manner within the vasculature structure does not affect the system.
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14, 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1: recites:
“detect the location of the part of the interventional device in the vasculature map branching-off location by performing segmentation on the real-time image to identify the part of the interventional device, wherein performing segmentation includes employing convolutional networks [...]“ – lines 14-17.
The above rejection to claim 1 apply to claim 13 and claim 14 for substantially identical claim limitations recited in the claim.
An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). This can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015), see MPEP § 2161(I).
The claim is rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) for a lack of written description. Proper written description cannot be identified in the specification, claims, and drawings directed to the computer implemented steps of the segmentation to identify the interventional device can be achieved by machine learning techniques using e.g., convolutional networks. Specifically, the specification does not provide and lacks detailed a step-by-step description, any algorithmic or flowchart-based disclosure, specific functions, and/or weights for the machine learning techniques or convolutional networks used for segmentation.
These limitations are computer/processor-implemented functional claim limitation as it is directed to a processor-controlled algorithm configured to determine a location. Yet the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed functions, i.e., “detect the location of the part of the interventional device in the vasculature map branching-off location by performing segmentation on the real-time image to identify the part of the interventional device, wherein performing segmentation includes employing convolutional networks [...]”, in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. It is not enough to disclose that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention, these claims are rejected for lack of written description. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP §§ 2161, 2162-2163.07(b).
The specification provides the following:
¶0131, ‘In an example, the segmentation is achieved by machine learning techniques using e.g. convolutional networks to learn from annotated examples how to extract them. In another example, traditional computer science techniques are used. As an example, the images are pre-filtered to highlight the elongated structures, then subject to a threshold and discussed on the temporal coherence of the extracted structures.’’
Indeed, the specification paragraph ¶0131 is directed to a mere example of generalized machine learning models tantamount to a black box, rather than showing procession of a particular implementation. Without the level of detail regarding the weights used, parameters, used, and operations of the segmentation using machine learning models, the written description requirement is not satisfied. The mere use of stating segmentation is achieved by machine learning techniques is not sufficient. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to implement the described process without disclosure of said weights, parameters, and/or operations of the segmentation achieved by machine learning techniques in a step-by-step manner. In addition, an assertion that could be derived using simulations or test (i.e., prophetic examples) does not demonstrate that the inventors actual did so or had possession of the specific functional relationships and constraints to obviate the lack of written description requirement.
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would not deem the instant specification having sufficient detail so that they could understand how the inventor intended to achieve the aforementioned step. Since the instant specification fails to provide a finite sequence of steps for performing step, the aforementioned claim fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The above rejection to claim 1 apply to claim 13 and claim 14 for substantially identical claim limitations recited in the claim.
Dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency to abovementioned claims.
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 2-5, 8, 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claim 1:
line 21: “the performance of the segmentation”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
Claim 2:
lines 1-2: “the detection of the branching-off location”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
Claim 4:
line 6, “extract further adding visual representation information”. The phrase is grammatical incorrect. Its is unclear what extract further adding visual representation information means in the context of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8:
line 1, “the indication”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
Claim 13:
line 18: “the performance of the segmentation”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
Claim 14:
line 19: “the performance of the segmentation”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
Claim 21:
line 5, “vessels”. It is unclear if the vessels refer to or are separate from the primary and secondary vessels. Appropriate correction is required.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities and should recite:
Claim 1:
line 15, “wherein the performing of the segmentation”. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3:
line 7: “the detected detailed vasculature structures”. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9:
line 2: “the updated
Claim 13:
line 11, there is a line break in the claim (i.e., an extract indent/space). Consistent formatting is needed.
lines 10-12, the location of the line break, the recitation of “detecting a location of the part of the interventional device in the vasculature map;” was recited in line 10 in the claims filed on 01/14/2025. Neither the recitation is represented in the claims filed on 11/07/2025, nor are there appropriate markings to indicate deletion. Appropriate correction is required.
line 12, “detecting [[the]]a location of the part of the interventional device in the vasculature map comprises” Appropriate correction is required.
line 14, “wherein the performing of the segmentation”. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Appropriate correction is required.
line 22, “updating the vasculature map. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14:
line 15, “wherein the performing of the segmentation”. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16:
line 6: “the detected detailed vasculature structures”. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19:
line 8: “the detected detailed vasculature structures”. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Robinson whose telephone number is (571)272-9019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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.
/N.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798