DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “simulating, by the one or more professors, stenting within the vessel between the proximal indicator and the distal indicator” in lines 11-12 is indefinite because it is unclear if the proximal indicator and the distal indictor is referring to the proximal indicator and distal indicator recited in lines 6-7 or the proximal indicator and distal indicator after user input adjustment that is recited in lines 8-9. For examining purpose, it is assumed that the simulating the stenting within the vessel between the proximal indicator and the distal indicator are user input adjusting of at least one of the proximal indicator and the distal indicator.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as they depend from rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the claim limitation “simulating stenting within the vessel between the proximal indicator and the distal indicator” in lines 14-15 is indefinite because it is unclear if the proximal indicator and the distal indictor is referring to the proximal indicator and distal indicator recited in lines 9-10 or the proximal indicator and distal indicator after user input adjustment that is recited in lines 11-12. For examining purpose, it is assumed that the simulating the stenting within the vessel between the proximal indicator and the distal indicator are user input adjusting of at least one of the proximal indicator and the distal indicator.
Claims 11-18 are rejected as they depend from rejected claim 10.
Regarding claim 19, the claim limitation “simulating stenting within the vessel between the proximal indicator and the distal indicator” in lines 13 is indefinite because it is unclear if the proximal indicator and the distal indictor is referring to the proximal indicator and distal indicator recited in lines 8-9 or the proximal indicator and distal indicator after user input adjustment that is recited in lines 10-11. For examining purpose, it is assumed that the simulating the stenting within the vessel between the proximal indicator and the distal indicator are user input adjusting of at least one of the proximal indicator and the distal indicator.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7-10, and 16-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Redel et al. (US 2007/0135707; hereinafter Redel), in view of Sato (JP 2005-198708; relied on English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Redel discloses a computerized workflow method for stent planning and stenting procedure. Redel shows a method of identifying features of a coronary artery (see par. [0022], [0023], [0035]), comprising: generating, by one or more processors (see par. [0014], [0015])), a 3D representation of a vessel that is based on vessel image data (see “A” in fig. 1; par. [0013], [0015], [0022], [0035]); providing for display, by the one or more processors, the 3D representation of the vessel comprising an indication of vessel narrowing (see “stenosis” in par. [0013], [0014], [0015], [0023]; the examiner notes that stenosis is an abnormal narrowing of vessel); wherein the display is configured to receive user input to mark the vessel narrowing (see par. [0014], [0022]); simulating, by the one or more processors, stenting within the vessel narrowing (see par. [0013], [0015], [0026]); calculating, by the one or more processor, one or more hemodynamic values based on one or more simulation of stenting (see par. [0038]; the examiner notes that the hemodynamic is dynamics of blood flow, and the dynamics information” disclosed in par. [0038] is hemodynamic information/values based on simulation of stenting); and providing for display, by the one or more processors, a visual representation of the vessel having a simulated stenting configuration that is based on the one or more hemodynamic value being represented in connection with the visual representation of the vessel (see par. [0013], [0015], [0026] and [0038]).
Redel shows that a physician can identify and mark the vessel narrowing on the display such as points indicating the characteristic of the vessel narrowing (see par. [0014], [0022]), but Redel fails to explicitly state marking a proximal indicator that is located proximally relative to the vessel narrowing, and a distal indicator that is located distally relative to the vessel narrowing, receive user input adjusting the proximal indicator and the distal indicator longitudinally along a length within the three-dimensional representation of the vessel, and that the stenting is done within the vessel between the proximal and the distal indicator. Furthermore, Redel fails to explicitly state that the marking is done on the 3D representation of the vessel.
Sato discloses vascular stenosis rate analyzing apparatus and vascular stenosis rate analyzing method. Sato teaches marking in 3D representation of the vessel (see fig. 8), marking a proximal indicator that is located proximally relative to the vessel narrowing (see fig. 8, 13 and 16; abstract; par. [0054]-[0059]), and a distal indicator that is located distally relative to the vessel narrowing (see fig. 8, 13 and 16; abstract; par. [0054]-[0059]), wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive user input adjusting at least one of the proximal indicator and the distal indicator longitudinally along a length within the 3D representation of the vessel (see fig. 8, 13 and 16; abstract; par. [0054]-[0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have utilized the teaching of marking a proximal indicator that is located proximally relative to the vessel narrowing, and a distal indicator that is located distally relative to the vessel narrowing, wherein the one or more processor configured to receive user input adjusting at least one of the proximal indicator and the distal indicator longitudinally along a length within the 3D representation of the vessel in the invention of Redel, as taught by Sato, to provide additional information such as an exact proximal and distal locations of the stenosis which would help improve simulate the localization and length for the stent. The examiner notes that using the extra information of the exact proximal and distal locations would help the physician know the exact length of the vessel narrowing which would improve with the simulation by knowing the exact length of the stent needed and the exact location the stent needs to be placed.
The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Redel to incorporate the marking of the proximal indicator that is located proximally relative to the vessel narrowing, and a distal indicator that is located distally relative to the vessel narrowing as taught by Sato would provide the simulation of stenting within the vessel between the proximal and the distal indicator.
Regarding claim 7, Redel and Sato disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Sato teaches identifying a location of minimum lumen area (see fig. 8 and abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Redel and Sato disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Redel shows wherein the information relating to the simulation of the stenting comprises displaying one or more hemodynamic values in connection with a representation of the vessel (see par. [0038]).
Regarding claim 9, Redel and Sato disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Redel shows receiving, by the one or more processor, user input for an altered stenting (see par. [0014], [0015], [0027], [0038]); re-calculating, by the one or more processors, one or more updated hemodynamic values based on the altered stenting (see par. [0014], [0015], [0027], [0038]); and providing for display, by the one or more processors, the one or more updated hemodynamic values (see par. [0014], [0015], [0027], [0038]).
Regarding claim 10, Redel discloses a computerized workflow method for stent planning and stenting procedure. Redel a system for identifying features of a coronary artery (see par. [0022], [0023], [0035]), comprising: a memory (see par. [0014], [0015]), the examiner notes that a computer will have a memory), one or more processors in communication with the memory (see par. [0014], [0015]), the one or more processors configured to: generate a 3D representation of a vessel that is based on vessel image data (see “A” in fig. 1; par. [0013], [0015], [0022], [0035]); providing for display the 3D representation of the vessel comprising an indication of vessel narrowing (see “stenosis” in par. [0013], [0014], [0015], [0023]; the examiner notes that stenosis is an abnormal narrowing of vessel); wherein the display is configured to receive user input to mark the vessel narrowing (see par. [0014], [0022]); simulating stenting within the vessel narrowing (see par. [0013], [0015], [0026]); calculating one or more hemodynamic values based on one or more simulation of stenting (see par. [0038]; the examiner notes that the hemodynamic is dynamics of blood flow, and the dynamics information” disclosed in par. [0038] is hemodynamic information/values based on simulation of stenting); and providing for display a representation of a simulated stenting configuration that is based on the one or more hemodynamic value (see par. [0013], [0015], [0026] and [0038]).
Redel shows that a physician can identify and mark the vessel narrowing on the display such as points indicating the characteristic of the vessel narrowing (see par. [0014], [0022]), but Redel fails to explicitly state marking a proximal indicator that is located proximally relative to the vessel narrowing, and a distal indicator that is located distally relative to the vessel narrowing, receive user input adjusting the proximal indicator and the distal indicator longitudinally along a length within the three-dimensional representation of the vessel, and that the stenting is done within the vessel between the proximal and the distal indicator. Furthermore, Redel fails to explicitly state that the marking is done on the 3D representation of the vessel.
Sato discloses vascular stenosis rate analyzing apparatus and vascular stenosis rate analyzing method. Sato teaches marking in 3D representation of the vessel (see fig. 8), marking a proximal indicator that is located proximally relative to the vessel narrowing (see fig. 8, 13 and 16; abstract; par. [0054]-[0059]), and a distal indicator that is located distally relative to the vessel narrowing (see fig. 8, 13 and 16; abstract; par. [0054]-[0059]), wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive user input adjusting at least one of the proximal indicator and the distal indicator longitudinally along a length within the 3D representation of the vessel (see fig. 8, 13 and 16; abstract; par. [0054]-[0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have utilized the teaching of marking a proximal indicator that is located proximally relative to the vessel narrowing, and a distal indicator that is located distally relative to the vessel narrowing, wherein the one or more processor configured to receive user input adjusting at least one of the proximal indicator and the distal indicator longitudinally along a length within the 3D representation of the vessel in the invention of Redel, as taught by Sato, to provide additional information such as an exact proximal and distal locations of the stenosis which would help improve simulate the localization and length for the stent. The examiner notes that using the extra information of the exact proximal and distal locations would help the physician know the exact length of the vessel narrowing which would improve with the simulation by knowing the exact length of the stent needed and the exact location the stent needs to be placed.
The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Redel to incorporate the marking of the proximal indicator that is located proximally relative to the vessel narrowing, and a distal indicator that is located distally relative to the vessel narrowing as taught by Sato would provide the simulation of stenting within the vessel between the proximal and the distal indicator.
Regarding claim 16, Redel and Sato disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Sato teaches identifying a location of minimum lumen area (see fig. 8 and abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Redel and Sato disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Redel shows wherein the information relating to the simulation of the stenting comprises displaying one or more hemodynamic values in connection with a representation of the vessel (see par. [0038]).
Regarding claim 18, Redel and Sato disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Redel shows receiving, by the one or more processor, user input for an altered stenting (see par. [0014], [0015], [0027], [0038]); re-calculating, by the one or more processors, one or more updated hemodynamic values based on the altered stenting (see par. [0014], [0015], [0027], [0038]); and providing for display, by the one or more processors, the one or more updated hemodynamic values (see par. [0014], [0015], [0027], [0038]).
Regarding claim 19, Redel discloses a computerized workflow method for stent planning and stenting procedure. Redel a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instruction executable by one or more processors ((see par. [0014], [0015])) for performing a method for identifying features of a coronary artery (see par. [0022], [0023], [0035]), comprising: generating a 3D representation of a vessel that is based on vessel image data (see “A” in fig. 1; par. [0013], [0015], [0022], [0035]); providing for display the 3D representation of the vessel comprising an indication of vessel narrowing (see “stenosis” in par. [0013], [0014], [0015], [0023]; the examiner notes that stenosis is an abnormal narrowing of vessel); wherein the display is configured to receive user input to mark the vessel narrowing (see par. [0014], [0022]); simulating stenting within the vessel narrowing (see par. [0013], [0015], [0026]); calculating one or more hemodynamic values based on one or more simulation of stenting (see par. [0038]; the examiner notes that the hemodynamic is dynamics of blood flow, and the dynamics information” disclosed in par. [0038] is hemodynamic information/values based on simulation of stenting); and providing for display a representation of a simulated stenting configuration that is based on the one or more hemodynamic value (see par. [0013], [0015], [0026] and [0038]).
Redel shows that a physician can identify and mark the vessel narrowing on the display such as points indicating the characteristic of the vessel narrowing (see par. [0014], [0022]), but Redel fails to explicitly state marking a proximal indicator that is located proximally relative to the vessel narrowing, and a distal indicator that is located distally relative to the vessel narrowing, receive user input adjusting the proximal indicator and the distal indicator longitudinally along a length within the three-dimensional representation of the vessel, and that the stenting is done within the vessel between the proximal and the distal indicator. Furthermore, Redel fails to explicitly state that the marking is done on the 3D representation of the vessel.
Sato discloses vascular stenosis rate analyzing apparatus and vascular stenosis rate analyzing method. Sato teaches marking in 3D representation of the vessel (see fig. 8), marking a proximal indicator that is located proximally relative to the vessel narrowing (see fig. 8, 13 and 16; abstract; par. [0054]-[0059]), and a distal indicator that is located distally relative to the vessel narrowing (see fig. 8, 13 and 16; abstract; par. [0054]-[0059]) wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive user input adjusting at least one of the proximal indicator and the distal indicator longitudinally along a length within the 3D representation of the vessel (see fig. 8, 13 and 16; abstract; par. [0054]-[0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have utilized the teaching of marking a proximal indicator that is located proximally relative to the vessel narrowing, and a distal indicator that is located distally relative to the vessel narrowing, wherein the one or more processor configured to receive user input adjusting at least one of the proximal indicator and the distal indicator longitudinally along a length within the 3D representation of the vessel in the invention of Redel, as taught by Sato, to provide additional information such as an exact proximal and distal locations of the stenosis which would help improve simulate the localization and length for the stent. The examiner notes that using the extra information of the exact proximal and distal locations would help the physician know the exact length of the vessel narrowing which would improve with the simulation by knowing the exact length of the stent needed and the exact location the stent needs to be placed.
The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Redel to incorporate the marking of the proximal indicator that is located proximally relative to the vessel narrowing, and a distal indicator that is located distally relative to the vessel narrowing as taught by Sato would provide the simulation of stenting within the vessel between the proximal and the distal indicator.
Claims 2, 4, 11 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Redel et al. (US 2007/0135707; hereinafter Redel), in view of Sato (JP 2005-198708) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Verhoeff et al. (“Influence of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Coronary Microvascular Resistance Index”; American Heart Association, Volume 111, issue 1, January 2005; hereinafter Verhoeff).
Regarding claim 2, Redel and Sato disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fail to explicitly state wherein the hemodynamic values comprises at least one of a vascular resistance ratio or a fractional flow reserve.
Verhoeff discloses influence of percutaneous coronary intervention on coronary microvascular resistance index and is an analogous art because Verhoeff teaches imaging of Stenosis in blood vessel and blood flow dynamics (see “Data Analysis). Verhoeff teaches wherein the hemodynamic values comprises a fractional flow reserve (see page 76, first paragraph of left column).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have utilized the teaching of FFR calculation in the invention of Redel and Sato, as taught by Verhoeff, to be able to measure the severity of the stenosis.
Regarding claim 4, Redel and Sato disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fail to explicitly state wherein calculating the one or more hemodynamic values is based on a microvascular resistance of peripheral coronary vasculature.
Verhoeff discloses influence of percutaneous coronary intervention on coronary microvascular resistance index and is an analogous art because Verhoeff teaches imaging of Stenosis in blood vessel and blood flow dynamics (see “Data Analysis). Verhoeff teaches calculating the one or more hemodynamic values is based on a microvascular resistance of peripheral coronary vasculature (see page 76, first paragraph of left column).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have utilized the teaching of calculating the one or more hemodynamic values is based on a microvascular resistance of peripheral coronary vasculature in the invention of Redel and Sato, as taught by Verhoeff, to be able to accurately determine the coronary blood flow using the microvascular resistance.
Regarding claim 11, Redel and Sato disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fail to explicitly state wherein the hemodynamic values comprises at least one of a vascular resistance ratio or a fractional flow reserve.
Verhoeff discloses influence of percutaneous coronary intervention on coronary microvascular resistance index and is an analogous art because Verhoeff teaches imaging of Stenosis in blood vessel and blood flow dynamics (see “Data Analysis). Verhoeff teaches wherein the hemodynamic values comprises a fractional flow reserve (see page 76, first paragraph of left column).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have utilized the teaching of FFR calculation in the invention of Redel and Sato, as taught by Verhoeff, to be able to measure the severity of the stenosis.
Regarding claim 13, Redel and Sato disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fail to explicitly state wherein calculating the one or more hemodynamic values is based on a microvascular resistance of peripheral coronary vasculature.
Verhoeff discloses influence of percutaneous coronary intervention on coronary microvascular resistance index and is an analogous art because Verhoeff teaches imaging of Stenosis in blood vessel and blood flow dynamics (see “Data Analysis). Verhoeff teaches calculating the one or more hemodynamic values is based on a microvascular resistance of peripheral coronary vasculature (see page 76, first paragraph of left column).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have utilized the teaching of calculating the one or more hemodynamic values is based on a microvascular resistance of peripheral coronary vasculature in the invention of Redel and Sato, as taught by Verhoeff, to be able to accurately determine the coronary blood flow using the microvascular resistance.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Redel et al. (US 2007/0135707; hereinafter Redel), in view of Sato (JP 2005-198708) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of LaDisa et al. (“Circumferential vascular deformation after stent implantation alters wall shear stress evaluated with time dependent 3D computational fluid dynamics models”; J Appl Physiol 9: 947-957, 2005; hereinafter LaDisa).
Regarding claim 3, Redel and Sato disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fail to explicitly state wherein simulating the stenting comprises the use of at least one of a resistor model and a computational fluid dynamics model.
LaDisa discloses time dependent 3D computational fluid dynamics models, and is an analogus art because Ladisa teaches fluid dynamics model in blood vessel of restenosis (see abstract). LaDisa teaches a computational fluid dynamic model (see fig. 5 and abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have utilized the teaching of a computational fluid dynamic model in the invention of Redel and Sato, as taught by LaDIsa, to help in successful restoration of blood flow and to observe the changes in vascular geometry after stent simulation.
Regarding claim 5, Redel and Sato disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fail to explicitly state calculating the one or more hemodynamic values is based on identification of a vessel type.
LaDisa discloses time dependent 3D computational fluid dynamics models, and is an analogus art because Ladisa teaches fluid dynamics model in blood vessel of restenosis (see abstract). LaDisa teaches calculating the one or more hemodynamic values is based on identification of a vessel type (see “creation of theoretical stented arteries section” on page 947).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have utilized the teaching of calculating the one or more hemodynamic values is based on identification of a vessel type in the invention of Redel and Sato, as taught by LaDisa, to be able to provide a better stenting simulation based on the specific vessel type.
Regarding claim 6, Redel and Sato disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fail to explicitly state that the vessel type is left anterior descending artery.
LaDisa discloses time dependent 3D computational fluid dynamics models, and is an analogus art because Ladisa teaches fluid dynamics model in blood vessel of restenosis (see abstract). LaDisa teaches the vessel type is left anterior descending artery (see “creation of theoretical stented arteries section” on page 947).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have utilized the teaching of that the vessel type is left anterior descending artery in the invention of Redel and Sato, as taught by LaDisa, to provide a accurate fluid dynamic model by create a computational fluid dynamic model based on specific vessel type.
Regarding claim 12, Redel and Sato disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fail to explicitly state wherein simulating the stenting comprises the use of at least one of a resistor model and a computational fluid dynamics model.
LaDisa discloses time dependent 3D computational fluid dynamics models, and is an analogus art because Ladisa teaches fluid dynamics model in blood vessel of restenosis (see abstract). LaDisa teaches a computational fluid dynamic model (see fig. 5 and abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have utilized the teaching of a computational fluid dynamic model in the invention of Redel and Sato, as taught by LaDIsa, to help in successful restoration of blood flow and to observe the changes in vascular geometry after stent simulation.
Regarding claim 14, Redel and Sato disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fail to explicitly state calculating the one or more hemodynamic values is based on identification of a vessel type.
LaDisa discloses time dependent 3D computational fluid dynamics models, and is an analogus art because Ladisa teaches fluid dynamics model in blood vessel of restenosis (see abstract). LaDisa teaches calculating the one or more hemodynamic values is based on identification of a vessel type (see “creation of theoretical stented arteries section” on page 947).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have utilized the teaching of calculating the one or more hemodynamic values is based on identification of a vessel type in the invention of Redel and Sato, as taught by LaDisa, to be able to provide a better stenting simulation based on the specific vessel type.
Regarding claim 15, Redel and Sato disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fail to explicitly state that the vessel type is left anterior descending artery.
LaDisa discloses time dependent 3D computational fluid dynamics models, and is an analogus art because Ladisa teaches fluid dynamics model in blood vessel of restenosis (see abstract). LaDisa teaches the vessel type is left anterior descending artery (see “creation of theoretical stented arteries section” on page 947).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have utilized the teaching of that the vessel type is left anterior descending artery in the invention of Redel and Sato, as taught by LaDisa, to provide an accurate fluid dynamic model by create a computational fluid dynamic model based on specific vessel type.
Response to Arguments
Upon further consideration and in view of Applicant’s remarks filed on 02/02/2026, the examiner has withdrawn the previous rejection under 35 USC 101.
Upon further consideration, the examiner has provided a new prior art rejection for the independent claims over Rede in view of Sato. The examiner notes that Sato teaches marking in 3D representation of the vessel (see fig. 8), marking a proximal indicator that is located proximally relative to the vessel narrowing (see fig. 8, 13 and 16; abstract; par. [0054]-[0059]), and a distal indicator that is located distally relative to the vessel narrowing (see fig. 8, 13 and 16; abstract; par. [0054]-[0059]) wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive user input adjusting at least one of the proximal indicator and the distal indicator longitudinally along a length within the 3D representation of the vessel (see fig. 8, 13 and 16; abstract; par. [0054]-[0059]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571)270-0552. 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.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights