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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “medical imaging devices”, which is equivalent to --- devices for medical imaging ---, in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The “medical imaging devices” (or, --devices for medical imaging --) has been interpreted as correspond to a CT scanner, an MRI machine, an X-ray scanner, a fluoroscope, an ultrasound scanner, as set forth in paragraph [0035] of Applicant’s PG-Pub 2022/0378506, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 12 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, in line 8, --- the – should be inserted before “heart”. Claim 12 is similarly objected to (see line 11).
In claim 1, in line 8, “aorta” should be replaced with --- the ascending aorta ---. Claim 12 is similarly objected to (see line 11).
In claim 1, in line 8, “coronaries” should be replaced with --- the coronary arteries ---. Claim 12 is similarly objected to (see line 11).
In claim 1, in line 9, “aorta” should be replaced with --- ascending aorta ---. Claim 12 is similarly objected to (see line 12).
In claim 1, in line 9, “coronaries” should be --- coronary arteries ---. Claim 12 is similarly objected to (see line 12).
In claim 1, in the last line, --- the --- should be inserted before “virtual bypass grafts”. Claim 12 is similarly objected to (see last line).
In claim 8, in lines 2-3, “resistance and capacitance parameters” should be replaced with --- parameters for resistance and capacitance ---. Claim 19 is similarly objected to (see lines 2-3).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4, 7-8 and 10-11 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.
With regards to claim 1, in lines 1-3, the claim recites “A computational simulation platform for…, comprising a computer-implemented method…”, which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to whether the claim is directed to an apparatus/product (a “platform” which may connote structure) or directed to a method. For examination purposes, Examiner assumes claim 1 is directed to a method as the body of the claim solely comprise of steps.
With regards to claim 1, in line 8, the claim refers to the “aorta” and the “great vessels”, wherein “great vessels”, as defined and known in the art, includes the major arteries and veins that directly connect to the heart, including the aorta, pulmonary artery, pulmonary veins, superior vena cava and inferior vena cava. As such, it is unclear as to whether when referring to the “great vessels”, Applicant is referring to all the known in the art “great vessels” or referring to particular “great vessels”. If the former, the claim already refers to creating patient-specific geometries of the “aorta”, and therefore, since “great vessels” also includes the “aorta”, it appears that the “aorta” is recited twice, creating further indefinite issues as it is unclear as to what is the distinction between the first reference to the “aorta” and the second reference to the “aorta” when referring to the “great vessels”. For examination purposes, Examiner assumes that when referring to the “great vessels”, Applicant is referring to the pulmonary artery, pulmonary veins, superior vena cava and the inferior vena cava. Claim 12 is similarly rejected.
With regards to claim 7, in line 4, the claim recites “by shortening its diastolic portion”. It is unclear as to what “its” is referring to. For examination purposes, Examiner assumes “its” is referring to an aspect of the resting flow rate. Claim 18 is similarly rejected (see lines 3-4, “by truncating its diastolic portion”).
With regards to claim 8, in line 2, it is unclear as to what element the “outlet areas” and in line 4, it is unclear as to what element the “boundary condition values” are referring to. For examination purposes, Examiner assumes the “outlet areas” are referring to the aeras of the three-element Windkessel model and the “boundary condition values” are referring to the patient-specific 3D reconstructions. Claim 19 is similarly rejected.
With regards to claim 10, in line 3, it is unclear as to whether the “native coronary arteries” are referring to the same “coronary arteries” set forth in line 6 of claim 1 or referring to different arteries. For examination purposes, Examiner assumes the former. Claim 20 is similarly rejected (see line 3).
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, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
With regards to claim 1, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “A computational simulation platform…” includes something that may not be inherently structural or a machine, and thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation, can be a signal per se. However, signals per se are not statutory. Further, if the “platform” is directed to a signal and/or it was Applicant’s intention that the “platform” is directed to a structure, yet the body of the claims are directed to steps (i.e. a method), the claim presents itself as a mixed statutory category claim, wherein 35 USC 101 requires that a claim be directed to a single statutory category. A claim that covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is improperly directed to non-statutory subject matter. Examiner suggests Applicant amend the claims to be directed to a single statutory subject matter, whether it be a system, a method, or a non-transitory computer readable medium (if supported by specification).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7, 10-13, 15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US Pub No. 2013/0132054) in view of Meng et al. (WO 2013/192234).
With regards to claims 1, 4, 12 and 15, Sharma et al. disclose a computational simulation platform and system for assessing impact of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (paragraphs [0004]-[0005], [0017]-[0018], referring to providing patient-specific multi-scale computational models with high predictive power for coronary circulation in healthy and diseased vessels, wherein virtual intervention based planning, such as for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG), using computational models is provided), comprising a computer-implemented method that includes:
generating patient-specific three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions of path lines for a patient's heart, ascending aorta, aortic arch, descending thoracic aorta, great vessels, coronary arteries and their major branches based on noninvasive imaging (i.e. “medical image data from one or more multiple imaging modalities”), wherein lumen boundaries for the path lines are segmented and lofted to create patient-specific geometries of heart, aorta, coronaries and great vessels (paragraphs [0025]-[0032], referring to generating a patient-specific anatomical model of the coronary arteries and the heart from the medical image data, wherein the patient-specific anatomical model includes a 4D (3D+time) geometric model of the coronary arteries generated using 4D medical image data, wherein, in order to generate the patient-specifical anatomical model of the coronary arteries, the coronary arteries are segmented in each frame of the 4D image data and a geometric surface model is then generated for the segmented coronary arteries of interest in each frame [note that the 3D/4D model is thus generated from frames/profiles, and thus lumen boundaries are segmented and lofted to create the patient-specific geometries of the heart, etc.); further referring to patient-specific anatomical model also includes a patient-specific 4D anatomical model of the heart, wherein the heart model has multiple cardiac components, including the left ventricle, left atrium, right ventricle, and right atrium, the heart valves (aortic valve, mitral valve, tricuspid valve and pulmonary valve, and the aorta and referring to the heart model (302) being implemented as a “full 3D heart model”, and thus would inherently include all the heart components, including the patient’s heart, ascending aorta, aortic arch, etc.; paragraph [0049], referring to the models including anatomy and dynamics of the left and right ventricles, left and right atria, aorta, aortic valve, mitral valve, tricuspid valve, pulmonary valve and trunk, pulmonary veins, and superior/inferior vena cava [note that the “great vessels”, as is known in the art, includes the aorta, pulmonary veins, and superior/inferior vena cava; Figures 1-3);
performing virtual CABG by modifying the patient-specific 3D reconstructions to computationally add path lines for one or more bypass grafts (paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0024], referring to virtual intervention planning being implemented using simulation based methods for intervention planning for virtual Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) using the computational models; paragraphs [0065]-[0067], referring to in diffuse artherosclerotic disease, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is typically performed, wherein introduction of such adjacent vessels (i.e. adding path lines for one or more bypass grafts), using various start and end points, can be simulated inside the multi-scale coronary circulation model in order to simulate CABG, wherein Image (c) of Figure 9 shows simulation of CABG in a region (922) of a coronary artery having diffuse coronary artery disease by adding a virtual bypass graft vessel (924); Figure 9),
wherein the patient-specific 3D reconstructions and virtual bypass grafts employ:
(i) a three-element Windkessel model for non-coronary outlets to model parameters for resistance and capacitance of proximal vessels and resistance of distal vessels (paragraph [0034], referring to “In the multi-scale perspective, regular 3-element Windkessel models can be used at the termination sites of vessels which do not belong to the coronary tree. The values of the resistances and compliances are determined by taking the average pressure and flow rate values and by adapting the resistance values in order to avoid non-physiological reflections”; Figures 1-3, 9); and
(ii) a lumped parameter model for coronary outlets to model parameters for coronary arterial resistance, coronary arterial microcirculation resistance, coronary venous microcirculation resistance, coronary venous resistance, coronary arterial compliance, myocardial compliance, and intramyocardial pressure (paragraphs [0030]-[0034], [0059], referring to “the rest of the circulation is represented through reduced-order models…lumped models for the small arteries and microvasculature”, “All microvascular beds will be simulated through lumped parameter models 322, 324, 326, 328, and 330 which account for the resistance applied to the blood flow and for the compliance of the distal vessels”, and “The coronary vascular bed is modeled through lumped parameter models 324, 326, 328, and 330, which are adapted to the coronary circulation in the sense that they take into account the effects of the myocardial contraction during systole”, wherein “the rest of the circulation” would include the above claimed resistances, compliances and pressure; Figures 1-3);
performing post-virtual CABG computational fluid dynamic (CFD) studies under computational resting and stress conditions (paragraphs [0043], [0055]-[0056], [0061]-[0068], referring to hemodynamic quantities being determined based on the flow computations, wherein functional aspects of a stenosis are able to predict patient outcome and the functional aspects are related to the blood flow rate through a stenosis “during rest and hyperemic state”, wherein a hyperemic state is known to describe the body’s response to increased blood flow which can occur due to stress (i.e. during exercise); Figures 1-3); and
assessing hemodynamic impact (i.e. determined “hemodynamic quantities”) of virtual CABG on the resting and hyperemic flow of diseased native coronary arteries and virtual bypass grafts (paragraphs [0055]-[0056], [0061]-[0068], referring to hemodynamic quantities being determined based on the flow computations, wherein functional aspects of a stenosis are able to predict patient outcome and the functional aspects are related to the blood flow rate through a stenosis “during rest and hyperemic state”; Figures 1-3, 9).
However, Sharma et al. do not specifically disclose that the patient-specific geometries of the heart, aorta, coronaries and great vessels are further discretized into tetrahedral elements with three refined prism layers [claim 1] or that the patient-specific 3D reconstructions and virtual bypass grafts are discretized into a fine mesh near lumen walls [claim 4].
Meng et al. disclose performing computation fluid dynamics modeling, wherein a model is meshed using a mesh generator to create finite volume tetrahedral elements and wall prism elements for accurate boundary layer resolution (Abstract; paragraphs [0118]-[0119]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the patient-specific geometries of the heart, aorta, coronaries and great vessels of Sharma et al. be further discretized into tetrahedral elements with refined prism layers [and thus the patient specific 3D reconstructions and virtual bypass grafts, which are part of the 3D reconstructions, are discretized into a fine mesh (which is a result of providing tetrahedral elements with prism layers) near lumen walls], as taught by Meng et al., in order to provide accurate boundary layer resolution (paragraph [0119]). Though the above combined references do not specifically disclose that there are “three” refined prism layers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization, to adopt three refined prism layers in order to determine the optimal number of layers that provide an accurate model. With regards to the “fine mesh” limitation in claims 4 and 15, Examiner notes that, as acknowledged by Applicant in paragraph [0046] of Applicant’s PG-Pub 2022/0378506, providing tetrahedral elements with three layers, as provided for by the above combined references, encompasses a “fine mesh”.
Additionally, with regards to claim 12, Sharma et al. disclose that the system comprises one or more medical imaging devices (i.e. CT scanner, MR scanner, etc.) and one or more computer systems communicatively coupled to the one or more medical imaging devices (paragraph [0017], referring to the invention being performed within a computer system; paragraphs [0026]-[0027], referring to the image acquisition devices, such as a CT scanner, MR scanner, Angiography scanner, etc.).
With regards to claims 2 and 13, Sharma et al. disclose that the noninvasive imaging comprises computed tomography angiography or magnetic resonance angiography (paragraphs [0026]-[0027], referring to the medical image data including computed tomography, angiography or MR).
With regards to claims 7 and 18, Sharma et al. disclose that the patient-specific 3D reconstructions and virtual bypass grafts are configured to computationally simulate hyperemic conditions (paragraph [0043], referring to exercise or drug-induced hyperemia being taken into account inside the multi-scale model of the coronary tree; paragraphs [0055]-[0056], referring to blood flow is simulated in the 3D models of the stenosis regions of the coronary arteries using CFD with patient-specific boundary conditions; paragraphs [0061]-[0066], referring to hemodynamic quantities are determined based on the flow computations, wherein functional aspects of stenosis are related to the blood flow rate through a stenosis, during rest and hyperemic state, and thus hyperemic conditions are simulated), wherein a resting flow rate is extrapolated by shortening its diastolic portion and shifting the resting flow rate up to extrapolate a simulated hyperemic waveform, and wherein the extrapolated simulated hyperemic waveform is prescribed at an aortic inlet (paragraphs [0042]-[0044], referring to exercise or drug-induced hyperemia and flow rate being taken into account inside the multi-scale model of the coronary tree and autoregulation takes place at rest state, i.e., with reduced heart rate and blood pressure, and for a stenosed vessel leads to a reduced microvascular resistance which compensates for the introduction of the flow-dependent stenosis resistance, wherein “autoregulation refers to the change in the microvascular resistance as a reaction to a change in the perfusion pressure and its role is to maintain a constant flow rate through the capillaries. This aspect refers to the normal or rest state of the body..”; paragraph [0057], referring to the inflow boundary condition for the systemic tree is derived by coupling the aorta to the left ventricle of the heart, and thus the cardiac output is determined at the inlet of the aorta not only by the heart model but also by the characteristics of the systemic tree to which it is coupled; paragraphs [0061]-[0066], referring to hemodynamic quantities are determined based on the flow computations, wherein functional aspects of stenosis are related to the blood flow rate through a stenosis, during rest (i.e. diastolic state) and hyperemic state (which corresponds to a shortening of a diastolic portion/state as it corresponds to an exercise/increased blood flow state)).
With regards to claims 10 and 20, Sharma et al. disclose that the computer-implemented method further includes calculating flow parameters in the native coronary arteries and virtual bypass grafts including resting distal coronary pressure to aortic pressure ratio (Pd/Pa) (paragraph [0061], referring to the division of the pressures); fractional flow reserve (FFR) (paragraphs [0061]-[0063]), flow rate (paragraphs [0030]-[0031], [0034], [0038]), flow velocity (paragraphs [0038], [0041], [0052] referring to producing “flow rate (velocity) values”), time-averaged wall shear stress (TAWSS) (paragraphs [0036], [0038], [0060]) and oscillatory shear index (OSI) (paragraph [0030], referring to, alternatively using the 1D models, the entire computation may be implemented on a 3D model; [0038], note that in a 3D model as set forth in paragraph [0030],, oscillatory shear index would thus be required), where mean pressures used to calculate the resting Pd/Pa and FFR are based on computationally simulated resting and hyperemic conditions (paragraph [0034], referring to model providing average pressure and flow rate values; paragraph [0061], referring to FFR being calculated by dividing the pressure distal to the stenosis to the pressure proximal to a stenosis).
With regards to claim 11, Sharma et al. disclose that the computer-implemented method is configured to guide a surgeon on the number and type of grafts, aiming to improve surgical planning, procedural duration, graft patency and clinical outcomes (paragraph [0018], referring to the embodiments of the invention providing virtual intervention based planning to improve the clinical management of coronary artery disease by leveraging the computational models to create specific to create specific therapeutic interventions, wherein such virtual intervention planning is implemented using simulation based methods for intervention planning (virtual stenting, angioplasty, and Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG)) using the computational models and further provides for improved clinical management both for diagnosis and intervention planning; paragraphs [0066]-[0067], referring to determining the most suitable intervention/treatment option and planning for the treatment, such as by selecting the type of stent or the start and end points for CABG, prior to the performing of the intervention).
Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. in view of Meng et al., as applied to claims 7 and 18 above, and further in view of Spilker et al. (US Pub No. 2010/0017171).
With regards to claims 8 and 19, as discussed above, the above combined references meet the limitations of claims 7 and 18. However, though Sharma et al. disclose that the patient-specific 3D reconstructions comprise 3D blood flow computations with no-slip boundary conditions being enforced at the vessels walls and the inflow and outflow boundary conditions being determined by an explicit/implicit coupling with the proximal and distal 1D segments (paragraph [0036], [0038], [0041], [0050]), the above combined references do not specifically disclose that total capacitance is distributed proportionally to outlet areas, wherein the resistance and capacitance parameters are iteratively adjusted to match normal aortic root blood pressure, and wherein boundary condition values are tuned until difference to a target pressure of the aorta is below a threshold difference.
Spilker et al. disclose computational methods to create cardiovascular simulations, wherein model parameters chosen to be tuned are the total resistance of the outlets proximal to the infrarenal plane, the total resistance of the distal outlets, and mean values and ratios of the values of the following two quantities for the three-element windkessels proximal and distal to the plane: the ratio of the proximal resistor to the total resistance and the time constant, defined by the product of the capacitance and the distal resistance (paragraph [0019]). A set of parameters is chosen by varying several sets of parameters and observing the resulting changes in flow and pressure waveforms (paragraph [0019]). The tuning of the boundary condition parameters is formulated as a system of six nonlinear equations in six unknowns, seeking a root where the simulated and measured hemodynamic conditions match (paragraph [0019], note that varying set of parameters can correspond to pressure waveforms and the measured hemodynamic conditions correspond to “normal” pressures; further, seeking a root wherein the conditions “match” inherently requires stopping when the differences between the conditions is below some threshold difference as the two conditions may not match perfectly). The tuning of parameters are related to resistances and capacitances (paragraph [0019], note that total capacitances are thus distributed throughout model, including the outlet areas). The modelling methods employ simplified models to approximate the behavior of more complex models with the goal of reducing computational expense (Abstract).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have total capacitance be distributed proportionally to outlet areas, wherein the resistance and capacitance parameters of the above combined references are iteratively adjusted to match normal aortic root blood pressure, and wherein boundary condition values are tuned until difference to a target pressure of the aorta is below a threshold difference, as taught by Spilker et al., in order to employ simplified models to approximate the behavior of more complex models with the goal of reducing computational expense (Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Itu et al. (US Patent No. 9,349,178) discloses hemodynamic determination in medical imaging, wherein machine learning maps input features to hemodynamic metrics, including flow rate, FFR, hypermic stenosis resistance, etc.. (Abstract; column 21, lines 24-45).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (ET).
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.
/KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798