DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment Entered
This Office action is responsive to the Amendment filed on November 7th, 2025. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-16, and 18-20, as well as the cancellation of claims 8 and 11. Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12-20 remain pending in the application. New claims 21-22 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 7th, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
At pages 19-20, Applicant argues that the claims provide an improvement because a user can use the first control to change the parameters of the stenosis measurement without leaving the screen. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
“The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification).” MPEP 2106.05(a). “That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.” Id.
“[I]n McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea.” MPEP 2106.05 (a). There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. Unlike McRO, the claimed system invokes a computer as a tool to perform a mathematical concept and/or mental process. The claims do not recite an improvement in technology, rather the claims recite an improvement in software/logic (abstract idea), and the improvement cannot be found in the abstract idea itself.
The computer-readable media storing instructions/computer-readable storage media storing instructions, processors/computing devices, generating a screen, first control/ first sub-control/ second sub-control perform the same with or without the claimed abstract idea. Therefore, it is unclear how the abstract idea can improve the standard functions of the additional elements.
At pages 20-23, Applicant argues that the Examiner fails to explain which of the following requirements is not satisfied under step 2A Prong Two pursuant to M.P.E.P. 2106.04(d)(1) and why it is not satisfied, and further that step 2B was erroneously applied to step 2A Prong Two. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
“Step 2A Prong Two is similar to Step 2B in that both analyses involve evaluating a set of judicial considerations to determine if the claim is eligible … Although most of these considerations overlap (i.e., they are evaluated in both Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B), Step 2A specifically excludes consideration of whether the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, in Step 2A Prong Two, examiners should ensure that they give weight to all additional elements, whether or not they are conventional, when evaluating whether a judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application” MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Under step 2A, prong two, the additional elements (computer-readable media storing instructions/computer-readable storage media storing instructions, processors/computing devices, generating a screen, first control/ first sub-control/ second sub-control) do not add meaningful limitations to the method. With or without the claimed abstract idea the computer-readable media storing instructions/computer-readable storage media storing instructions, processors/computing devices, generating a screen, first control/ first sub-control/ second sub-control perform the same. Therefore, it is unclear how the abstract idea can improve the standard functions of the additional elements.
Furthermore, under step 2B, the claim utilizes the computer-readable media storing instructions/computer-readable storage media storing instructions, processors/computing devices, generating a screen, first control/ first sub-control/ second sub-control, which are generic and well-known in the industry – as evidenced by the cited prior art of record herewith: Blish, II (US 6049465 A), in col. 1 lines 19-20, discloses a conventional microprocessor; Antill (US 20120137283 A1), in para. [0017, 0050], discloses conventional hardware such as processors, memory, computer readable storage media; Jamello, III (US 2012/0065511 A1), in para. [0025], discloses in conventional systems, the tomographic image and longitudinal image are generally displayed on a non-touchscreen; Wansley (US 5327398 A), in col. 3 lines 59-61, discloses the generation of the historical portion 32 by processor 18 and its display on screen 25 are conventional; Trefler (US 20090132232 A1), in para. [0044], discloses the user interfaces generated and transmitted by server 12 to the digital data processors 28, 30 are shown as conventional GUI "display screens" of the type used to present information; Kelley (US 7916157 B1), in col. 1 lines 25-27, discloses the typical conventional GUI window presents multiple simultaneous display objects, driven by the underlying application; Delker (US 8306522 B1), in col. 3 lines 24-25, discloses conventional controls such as buttons, drop-down menus, and other known controls; Nygaard (US 20030158687 A1), in para. [0030], discloses a conventional drop down or other standard GUI type menu (Examiner note: see para. [0034] of the instant application specification - control); and the Non-Patent Literature of record.
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 7th, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “in response to an activation of .
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7, 9-10, and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12-22 are all within at least one of the four categories.
Independent claim 1 recites:
one or more processors that are in communication with the one or more computer-readable media and that, when executing the instructions, cooperate with the one or more computer-readable media to perform operations that comprise:
calculating a first dimension of a lumen at a measured location in the lumen based on optical-imaging data of the lumen, wherein the optical-imaging data was acquired from an optical scan that was performed inside the lumen;
calculating a second dimension of the lumen at a first reference location in the lumen based on the optical-imaging data of the lumen;
generating a tomographic view of the lumen and a longitudinal view of the lumen based on the optical-imaging data of the lumen;
generating a screen that includes the tomographic view of the lumen, the longitudinal view of the lumen, a first stenosis measurement, and a first control,
wherein the screen simultaneously displays the tomographic view of the lumen, the longitudinal view of the lumen, the first stenosis measurement, and the first control,
wherein the longitudinal view of the lumen includes a measured-location indicator that indicates the measured location in the lumen and a first reference indicator that indicates the first reference location in the lumen, and
wherein the first control, when activated, displays both a first sub- control and a second sub-control, wherein the first sub-control includes a first indicator that indicates that activation of the first sub-control causes the first stenosis measurement to be calculated based on only one reference location, and the first sub-control, when activated, issues a first instruction to calculate the first stenosis measurement based on a ratio of the first dimension of the lumen at the measured location in the lumen to the second dimension of the lumen at the first reference location in the lumen, and
wherein the second sub-control includes a second indicator that indicates that activation of the second sub-control causes the first stenosis measurement to be calculated based on two reference locations, and the second sub-control, when activated, issues a second instruction to calculate the first stenosis measurement based on a ratio of the first dimension of the lumen at the measured location in the lumen to a value that is based on both (i) the second dimension of the lumen at the first reference location in the lumen and (ii) a third dimension of the lumen at a second reference location in the lumen; in response to the first sub-control issuing the first instruction, calculating the first stenosis measurement based on the ratio of the first dimension of the lumen at the measured location in the lumen to the second dimension of the lumen at the first reference location in the lumen; and
in response to the second sub-control issuing the second instruction, calculating the third dimension of the lumen at the second reference location in the lumen based on the optical-imaging data of the lumen, and
calculating the first stenosis measurement based on the ratio of the first dimension of the lumen at the measured location in the lumen to the value that is based on both (i) the second dimension of the lumen at the first reference location in the lumen and (ii) the third dimension of the lumen at the second reference location in the lumen.
Independent claim 9 recites:
generating a tomographic view of a lumen and a longitudinal view of the lumen based on optical-imaging data of the lumen, wherein the optical-imaging data was acquired from an optical scan that was performed inside the lumen;
generating a screen that includes the tomographic view of the lumen in a first region of the screen, that includes the longitudinal view of the lumen in a second region of the screen, and that includes a first control;
in response to an activation of the first control, displaying both a first sub-control and a second sub-control,
wherein the first sub-control includes a first indicator that indicates that activation of the first sub-control causes a first stenosis measurement to be calculated based on only one reference location, and the first sub-control, when activated, issues a first instruction to calculate the first stenosis measurement based on a ratio of a first dimension of the lumen at a measured location in the lumen to a second dimension of the lumen at a first reference location in the lumen, and
wherein the second sub-control includes a second indicator that indicates that activation of the second sub-control causes the first stenosis measurement to be calculated based on two reference locations, and the second sub-control, when activated, issues a second instruction to calculate the first stenosis measurement based on a ratio of the first dimension of the lumen at the measured location in the lumen to a value that is based on both (i) the second dimension of the lumen at the first reference location in the lumen and (ii) a third dimension of the lumen at a second reference location in the lumen;
in response to an activation of the first sub-control,
calculating the first dimension of the lumen at the measured location in the lumen based on the optical-imaging data of the lumen;
calculating the second dimension of the lumen at the first reference location in the lumen based on the optical-imaging data of the lumen;
calculating the first stenosis measurement of the measured location in the lumen based on the ratio of the first dimension of the lumen at the measured location in the lumen to the second dimension of the lumen at the first reference location in the lumen,
adding the first stenosis measurement to the screen, and
adding, to the longitudinal view of the lumen, a measured-location indicator that indicates the measured location in the lumen and a first reference indicator that indicates the first reference location in the lumen;
wherein the screen simultaneously displays the tomographic view of the lumen, the longitudinal view of the lumen, the first stenosis measurement, the first control, the measured-location indicator, and the first reference indicator; and
in response to an activation of the second sub-control
calculating the first dimension of the lumen at the measured location in the lumen based on the optical-imaging data of the lumen;
calculating the second dimension of the lumen at the first reference location in the lumen based on the optical-imaging data of the lumen;
calculating the third dimension of the lumen at the second reference location in the lumen based on the optical-imaging data of the lumen;
calculating the first stenosis measurement of the measured location in the lumen based on the ratio of the first dimension of the lumen at the measured location in the lumen to the value that is based on both (i) the second dimension of the lumen at the first reference location in the lumen and (ii) the third dimension of the lumen at the second reference location in the lumen;
adding the first stenosis measurement to the screen, and
adding, to the longitudinal view of the lumen, a measured-location indicator that indicates the measured location in the lumen, the first reference indicator that indicates the first reference location in the lumen; a second reference indicator that indicates the second reference location in the lumen,
wherein the screen simultaneously displays the tomographic view of the lumen, the longitudinal view of the lumen, the first stenosis measurement, the first control, the measured-location indicator, the first reference indicator, and the second reference indicator.
Independent claim 15 recites:
generating a tomographic view of a lumen and a longitudinal view of the lumen based on optical-imaging data of the lumen, wherein the optical-imaging data was acquired from an optical scan that was performed inside the lumen;
generating a screen that includes a first control, the tomographic view of the lumen, and the longitudinal view of the lumen,
wherein the screen simultaneously displays the first control, the tomographic view of the lumen, and the longitudinal view of the lumen; and
in response to an activation of the first control, displaying both a first sub-control and a second sub-control,
wherein the first sub-control includes a first indicator that indicates that activation of the first sub-control causes a first stenosis measurement to be calculated based on only one reference location, and the first sub-control, when activated, issues a first instruction to calculate the first stenosis measurement based on a ratio of a first dimension of the lumen at a measured location in the lumen to a second dimension of the lumen at a first reference location in the lumen, and
wherein the second sub-control includes a second indicator that indicates that activation of the second sub-control causes the first stenosis measurement to be calculated based on two reference locations, and the second sub-control, when activated, issues a second instruction to calculate the first stenosis measurement based on a ratio of the first dimension of the lumen at the measured location in the lumen to a value that is based on both (i) the second dimension of the lumen at the first reference location in the lumen and (ii) a third dimension of the lumen at a second reference location in the lumen;
in response to an activation of the first sub-control,
calculating the first dimension of the lumen at the measured location in the lumen based on the optical-imaging data of the lumen;
calculating the second dimension of the lumen at the first reference location in the lumen based on the optical-imaging data of the lumen;
calculating the first stenosis measurement of the measured location in the lumen based on the ratio of the first dimension of the lumen at the measured location in the lumen to the second dimension of the lumen at the first reference location in the lumen,
adding the first stenosis measurement to the screen, and
adding, to the longitudinal view of the lumen, a measured-location indicator that indicates the measured location in the lumen and a first reference indicator that indicates the first reference location in the lumen;
wherein the screen simultaneously displays the tomographic view of the lumen, the longitudinal view of the lumen, the first stenosis measurement, the first control, the measured-location indicator, and the first reference indicator; and
in response to an activation of the second sub-control,
calculating the first dimension of the lumen at the measured location in the lumen based on the optical-imaging data of the lumen;
calculating the second dimension of the lumen at the first reference location in the lumen based on the optical-imaging data of the lumen;
calculating the third dimension of the lumen at the second reference location in the lumen based on the optical-imaging data of the lumen;
calculating the first stenosis measurement of the measured location in the lumen based on the ratio of the first dimension of the lumen at the measured location in the lumen to the value that is based on both (i) the second dimension of the lumen at the first reference location in the lumen and (ii) the third dimension of the lumen at the second reference location in the lumen;
adding the first stenosis measurement to the screen, and
adding, to the longitudinal view of the lumen, a measured-location indicator that indicates the measured location in the lumen, the first reference indicator that indicates the first reference location in the lumen; and a second reference indicator that indicates the second reference location in the lumen,
wherein the screen simultaneously displays the tomographic view of the lumen, the longitudinal view of the lumen, the first stenosis measurement, the first control, the measured-location indicator, the first reference indicator, and the second reference indicator.
The above claim limitations (calculating, adding) constitute an abstract idea that is part of the Mental Processes group identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019
The claimed steps of calculating and adding can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas.
“[T]he ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. The pending claims merely recite steps for medical imaging that include observations, evaluations, and judgments.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
a claim to collecting and comparing known information, which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract (claims 2-7, 10, 12-15, 16-22) or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry. Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
This judicial exception (abstract idea) in Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12-22 is not integrated into a practical application because:
The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for calculating and adding merely invoke a computer as a tool.
The data-gathering step (optical-imaging data … acquired) and the data-output step (generating) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computer that is used as a tool for calculating and adding.
The claims do not apply the abstract idea to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to calculate a stenosis measurement.
The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computer for calculating and adding. The claims do not apply the obtained calculation to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in a post-solution step.
The additional elements are identified as follows: computer-readable media storing instructions/computer-readable storage media storing instructions, processors/computing devices, generating a screen, first control/ first sub-control/ second sub-control.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by
Applicant’s specification (e.g., para. [0077-0078]) which discloses that the processor(s)/computing device(s) and computer-readable media/computer-readable storage media comprise generic computer components that are configured to perform the generic computer functions (e.g., calculating and adding) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
The prior art of record: Blish, II (US 6049465 A), in col. 1 lines 19-20, discloses a conventional microprocessor.
The prior art of record: Antill (US 20120137283 A1), in para. [0017, 0050], discloses conventional hardware such as processors, memory, computer readable storage media.
The prior art of record: Jamello, III (US 2012/0065511 A1), in para. [0025], discloses in conventional systems, the tomographic image and longitudinal image are generally displayed on a non-touchscreen.
The prior art of record: Wansley (US 5327398 A), in col. 3 lines 59-61, discloses the generation of the historical portion 32 by processor 18 and its display on screen 25 are conventional.
The prior art of record: Trefler (US 20090132232 A1), in para. [0044], discloses the user interfaces generated and transmitted by server 12 to the digital data processors 28, 30 are shown as conventional GUI "display screens" of the type used to present information.
The prior art of record: Kelley (US 7916157 B1), in col. 1 lines 25-27, discloses the typical conventional GUI window presents multiple simultaneous display objects, driven by the underlying application.
The prior art of record: Delker (US 8306522 B1), in col. 3 lines 24-25, discloses conventional controls such as buttons, drop-down menus, and other known controls.
The prior art of record: Nygaard (US 20030158687 A1), in para. [0030], discloses a conventional drop down or other standard GUI type menu (Examiner note: see para. [0034] of the instant application specification - control); and
The Non-Patent Literature of record.
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3.
Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(lI) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional generic computer components as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the units associated with the steps do not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. A computer, processor, memory, or equivalent hardware is merely used as a tool for executing the abstract idea(s). The process claimed does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of the computer.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e., the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Plakas (US 20140378850 A1) discloses, in para. [0067], that percentage stenosis is calculated by comparing the measured lumen diameter at the maximum stenosis point to the measured lumen diameter at a proximal reference point … and if two reference points are equally close to the maximum stenosis point, the region identification unit 30 may choose between them when calculating the percentage stenosis, or may average the lumen diameters at the two reference points; Zeng (US 20110081057 A1) discloses, in para. [0005, 0040], choosing/selecting a reference diameter.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW ELI HOFFPAUIR whose telephone number is (571)272-4522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/A.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791