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 .
Applicant’s Response
In Applicant’s Response dated 2/19/26, the Applicant amended claims 1 and argued claims previously rejected in the Office Action dated 12/19/25. Claims 1, 3-8, 15 and 16 are pending for examination. Claims 9-13 are withdrawn from examination/restricted.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1, 3-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Dell, United States Patent Publication 2014/0355858 A1, in view of Lavi et al., United States Patent Publication 2016/0247279 (hereinafter “Lavi”), in further view of Fujita et al., United States Patent Publication WO2007/026598 (hereinafter “Fujita”).
Claim 1:
O’Dell discloses:
Method for determining at least one parameter of at least one bifurcation of a vascular tree of a subject, notably a cerebral one, the method comprising the steps of (see paragraph [0025]). O’Dell teaches determining parameters of a bifurcation of a vascular tree such as number of vessels having a radium falling within certain ranges:
acquiring a three dimensional image of the vascular tree by computed tomography (see paragraph [0018]). O’Dell discloses perform automated analyses of medical imaging data, including 2-Dimensional and 3-Dimensional medical imaging data such as is obtained through Computed Tomography (CT) imaging techniques, similar techniques, or as is obtained through any other suitable current or future technique;
using a processor comprising a data-processing unit, memories and a reader to process a three-dimensional image of the vascular tree with a first technique to obtain a three-dimensional skeleton of the tree (see paragraphs [0024] and [0025]). O’Dell teaches processing a 3D image of the vascular tree with a technique or analysis. Such analysis is able to, for example, quantify metrics associated with the vessel tree of an organ such as a lung. Metrics such as total volume, histograms of the number of vessels having a radius falling within certain ranges, and the like, are able to be calculated based upon the 3-Dimensional vascular model. Further, changes to the vascular structure of the portion of the subject are able to be observed and characterized by processing 3-Dimensional imaging data for the subject that are captured at different times to determine a corresponding time sequence of vascular models for the subject,
the data-processing unit further applying an operation of skeletonization by sweeping over the all the image a predefined structure of voxels and eliminating the voxels of the predefined structure of voxels when the removal of said voxels does not affect the connectivity of the three-dimensional skeleton of the tree (see paragraph [0030]). O’Dell teaches extract vessel images and identify a skeleton of the vascular structure captured in the received image data. A process of vessel segmentation that includes extraction and identification of the vessel components from the image. The background vessels are separated from the vessels of the skeleton tree.
using a processor comprising a data-processing unit, memories and a reader to analyze the obtained skeleton by a second technique to obtain a graph of the vascular tree, the graph being a set of nodes linked by edges (see paragraph [0034]-[0036], [0038]). O’Dell teaches analyzing the obtained skeleton and creating a representation of the vascular tree. The representation being a set of points linked by ends; and
using a processor comprising a data-processing unit, memories and a reader to detect the presence of a bifurcation when the graph comprises a node linked to at least three edges (see paragraph [0038]). O’Dell teaches identifying points in the representation and detecting bifurcation based on the points.
O’Dell fails to expressly disclose acquiring a 3D image of the vascular tree by computer tomography angiography or magnetic resonance angiography and weight nodes of the vascular tree.
Lavi discloses:
using an angiography device for acquiring a three dimensional image of the vascular tree by computed tomography (see paragraph [0192]-[0200]). Lavi teaches using an angiography device for acquiring images of the vascular tree by CT.
the graph being a set of nodes linked by edges with a weight on the edges (see paragraphs [0313]). Lavi teaches having weighted edges of the vascular tree representing the healthiness or width of the vessels.
Accordingly, it was obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Dell to include weighting parts of the vascular tree based on width and health for the purpose of efficiently determine vascular data based on 3d imaging, as taught by Lavi.
O’Dell and Lavi fail to expressly disclose acquiring a 3D image of the vascular tree by computed tomography angiography or magnetic resonance angiography and a binarization process.
Fujita discloses:
acquiring a three dimensional image of the vascular tree by computed tomography angiography or magnetic resonance angiography (see paragraphs [0096]-[0097]). Fujita discloses an MRI image obtained by other imaging methods such as a contrast MRA image obtained by imaging a blood vessel region using a contrast agent may be used. Fujita teaches by aligning the reference image and the target image with predetermined positions and names of the eight blood vessel portions included in the blood vessel image on the image with respect to the blood vessel image, The position and name of each blood vessel part included in the blood vessel image on the target image is determined. Since the position and name information is attached to the target image as blood vessel part information, when performing MIP display of the target image, each blood vessel part can be easily determined based on the blood vessel part information;
wherein the data-processing unit applies an operation of binarization of the three-dimensional vascular images in which a threshold is used to obtain voxels with a first value indicating the presence of a vascular structure and a lower value indicating that no vascular structure is detected (see paragraph [0039], [0044], [0045] and [0067]). Fujita teaches using a binarization processing on a 3D image that assigns a value based on the presence of blood vessels. the blood vessel image appears white and other tissue parts appear black. Therefore, in the binary image, the blood vessel image has a different value from the other regions.
Accordingly, it was obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Dell and Lavi to include a binarization process for images for the purpose of efficiently accurately detecting an unruptured cerebral aneurysm by distinguishing it from a vascular tissue, as taught by Fujita.
Claim 3:
O’Dell discloses:
wherein the method further comprises a step of using a processor comprising a data-processing unit, memories and a reader to calculate the geodesic distance between two bifurcations (see paragraph [0057]). O’Dell teaches calculating the short distance between two bifurcations such as a parent and a child.
Claim 4:
O’Dell discloses:
wherein the method for determining further comprises a step of using a processor comprising a data-processing unit, memories and a reader to determine a characteristic of the bifurcation (see paragraphs [0003], [0021] and [0025]). O’Dell teaches determining a characteristic of bifurcation such as detecting changes in the vascular tree over time.
Claim 5:
O’Dell discloses:
wherein a bifurcation angle is defined for a bifurcation and a cross-section area is defined for a bifurcation, the method comprising using a processor comprising a data-processing unit, memories and a reader to determine the bifurcation angle of the detected bifurcation and/or the cross-section area of the detected bifurcation (see paragraphs [0051], [0053] and [0066]). O’Dell teaches determining a bifurcation angle based on the trajectories and cross of bifurcation points.
Claim 6:
O’Dell fails to expressly disclose calculating the curvature of voxels.
Lavi discloses:
wherein the method comprises a step of using a processor comprising a data-processing unit, memories and a reader to obtain the artery tortuosity by calculating the curvature of each voxel of an artery (see paragraphs [0071] and [0273]). Lavi teaches obtaining the artery tortuosity by calculating the curvature of the elements of the vascular object.
Accordingly, it was obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Dell to include calculating the curvature of the vascular object for the purpose of efficiently determining the volume of the vascular object, as taught by Lavi.
Claim 7:
O’Dell fails to expressly disclose pooling to curvature to determine tortuosity parameter.
Lavi discloses:
wherein obtaining the artery tortuosity comprises pooling the curvatures to obtain the tortuosity parameter (see paragraphs [0434]). Lavi teaches pooling at different time with time ranging from milliseconds to years all changes to the vascular tortuosity to obtain a state difference parameter.
Accordingly, it was obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Dell to include polling the curvatures to determine the differences for the purpose of efficiently tracking vascular state changes, as taught by Lavi.
Claim 15:
Although Claim 15 is a computer readable medium claim, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as the method of Claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Dell, in view of Lavi and Fujita, in further view of Wang et al., “Spatial Pooling Strategies for Perceptual Image Quality Assessment (hereinafter “Wang”).
Claim 8:
O’Dell, Lavi and Fujita fail to expressly disclose pooling using a weighted sum.
Wang discloses:
wherein the pooling is achieved by using a weighted Minkowski sum (see page 1 section 2.1 Minkowski Pooling). Wang teaches the pooling is achieved by using an equating finding the weighted sum.
Accordingly, it was obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Dell, Lavi and Fujita to include polling the curvatures using the Minkowski sum for the purpose of efficiently reducing the absolute error in image analysis and analysis, as taught by Wang.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Dell, in view of Lavi and Fujita, in further view of Lucus et al., United States Patent Publication 20190178649 (hereinafter “Lucus”).
Claim 16:
O’Dell, Lavi and Fujita fails to expressly disclose a graph with nodes linked by weighted edges.
Lucus discloses:
wherein the graph is a set of nodes linked by edges with a weight (see paragraph [0003] and [0059]). Lucus teaches the graph having nodes linked by weighted edges.
Accordingly, it was obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Dell, Lavi and Fujita to include the vascular tree graph having nodes linked by weighted edges for the purpose of efficiently generating a graph and an optimal route for a vessel based on vessel traffic data, as taught by Lucus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REM filed 2/19/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1,3-8, 15 and 16 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of O’Dell, Lavi and Fujita.
The CT Angiography or MR Angiography Acquisition Is Taught and Suggested
Applicant argues Neither O'Dell, Lavi, nor Hashimoto teaches or suggests acquiring a three dimensional image of the vascular tree by computer tomography angiography or magnetic resonance angiography.
The Examiner agrees that O’Dell, Lavi nor Hashimoto teaches computer tomography angiography or magnetic resonance angiography.
The Examiner introduced new art, Fujita, to teach the argued limitation.
Fujita discloses an MRI image obtained by other imaging methods such as a contrast MRA image obtained by imaging a blood vessel region using a contrast agent may be used. Fujita teaches by aligning the reference image and the target image with predetermined positions and names of the eight blood vessel portions included in the blood vessel image on the image with respect to the blood vessel image, The position and name of each blood vessel part included in the blood vessel image on the target image is determined. Since the position and name information is attached to the target image as blood vessel part information, when performing MIP display of the target image, each blood vessel part can be easily determined based on the blood vessel part information. Thus, Fujita, combined with O’Dell and Lavi teaches the argued limitation.
The Specific Skeletonization Method Is Taught or Suggested by the Prior Art
Applicant argues O'Dell fails to disclose the step of eliminating voxels only when their removal does not affect connectivity. Neither the general description nor the specific embodiment in O'Dell teaches conditional elimination based on connectivity preservation.
The Examiner disagrees.
The claims do not further define or particularly claim a specific algorithm to perform the sweeping of the entire image such as an octree structure 3x3x3 voxels. The Examiner suggest further defining the specific algorithm to teach away from the cited prior art.
The Specific Binarization Method Is Not Taught or Suggested by the Prior Art
Applicant argues Hashimoto operates in a fundamentally different technical context (extracorporeal circulation apparatus VS Binarization of three-dimensional vascular images obtained by CT or MR angiography to segment vascular structures from surrounding tissue). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to look to Hashimoto, which addresses blood reservoir monitoring in
extracorporeal circulation equipment, for guidance on how to perform binarization of 3D
vascular angiographic images.
The Applicant argues that Hashimoto does not teach the argued limitations.
The Examiner no longer uses Hashimoto in the current rejection.
The Unexpected Advantages Provided by Claim 1 Are Taught or Suggested by
the Prior Art
The Applicant argues The prior art does not recognize or address this specific
technical challenge. The claimed method is specifically adapted for cerebral vascular
trees, where accurate bifurcation detection is critical for aneurysm risk assessment. The
prior art does not address this specific clinical application.
The Examiner disagrees. The new combination of art does teach the argued limitations.
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 TIONNA M BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-7259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571)272-4124. 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.
/TIONNA M BURKE/Examiner, Art Unit 2178 5/27/26
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights