-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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 12/08/2025 has been entered. Accordingly, claims 1, 4-10, 12-17, and 19-21 remain pending, claims 10 and 21 has been amended, and claim 18 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Claim objections
In light of the amendments filed 12/08/2025, the objections of claims 10 and 21 are rendered moot and have been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the first through third paragraphs of page 8
“The present Specification teaches that ‘while the processor 106 may provide a reliable level of precision and accuracy when identifying the MLA, the distal reference point, and the proximal reference point, and/or identifying other features of a blood vessel, a clinician may still wish to review the locations of these points and, if desired, confirm and/or modify the location of these points.’ See Specification, ¶ 106. Thus, the Specification identifies that a physician may want to move the various bookmarked reference points (e.g., distal, proximal, and particularly, MLA).
Regarding moving these bookmarks, the Specification teaches that the
‘indicators/bookmarks 422, 424, 426 are deemed soft in that the user can still review the position of the indicators/bookmarks 422, 424, 426 and, if desired, make any desired changes prior to locking in/ confirming or otherwise making the indicators/bookmarks 422, 424, 426 hard.’ See Specification, ¶ 109 (emphasis added, internal quotes omitted).
The Specification elaborates on how bookmarks can be moved and teaches that ‘a user may select a bookmark or indicator 422, 424, 426. At box 448, the user may move the scrubber to look for a more desirable location for the particular bookmark or indicator 422, 424, 426. When doing so, the selected indicator/bookmark 422, 424, 426 moves/translates along the longitudinal section display 420. It can be appreciated that each of the indicators 422, 424, 426 are independently movable along the longitudinal section display 420.’ See Specification, ¶ 113 (emphasis added)”.
In response, it is noted that the rejected limitation of claim 1 outlined in the rejection under 112(a) is “wherein the minimum lumen area position is movable along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel by a user via the scrubber icon”. The rejection is not against the indicator of/for the minimum lumen area position being movable by a user via a scrubber icon, but it is outlining that there is no support, as applicant has so provided in paragraphs [0106], [0109], [0113], that the language of claim, as currently constructed, recites the physical position [static] of the minimum lumen area is movable [or changes].
Applicant is advised to amend the claim to recite that “wherein an indicator of the minimum lumen area position is movable along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel by a user via the scrubber icon” in order to remedy the rejection of claim 1. The suggested language for the amendment is as presented by the applicant in dependent claims 5 and 6.
Claim 16 should be amended as advised above regarding claim 1.
Regarding the 112(b) rejections, it is noted that applicant has canceled claim 18, rendering the amendment of claim 18 moot and it has been withdrawn. However, the issues outlined in the previous rejection of canceled 18, were also present in and applied to claims 16 and 20, as previously remarked. Therefore, claims 19 and 20 remain rejected. Applicant has not amended the claims nor presented arguments against the rejections of these claims.
Regarding claims 10 and 13 under 112(b), the amendments to the claims filed 12/08/2025, have rendered the previous rejections of claims 10 and 13 moot and they have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues in the third through fifth paragraphs of page 9
“See Office Action, page 5. Applicant disagrees with this logic. As detailed above with cites to ¶ 106, 109, and 113 of the Specification, a position of the MLA can be moved by a user via the scrubber. This does not create move MLA's but rather moves the identified "minimum lumen area position" referenced in the claims.
Rejections of claims 10, 13, and 18-20 have been addressed above”.
As discussed above in response to applicant’s arguments against the rejections under 112(a), it is noted that applicant has not provided support for the claimed limitations in paragraphs for the position of the MLA to be moved, but rather, an indicator of the position of the MLA. The indicator is not presently recited in claim 1, nor claims 10, 16, therefore, these claims, and claims dependent thereon, remain rejected.
Applicant argues in the third through fifth paragraphs of page 9
“Claim 21 is rejected but has been amended to, although not required, provide literal textual support for the claim language. It is submitted that it is clear how the selection and movement is accomplished via receiving commands from a user via the claimed interface”.
In response, it is noted that the amendments made to claim 21 do not address all the issues outlined in the previous rejection made for claim 21 under 112(b). The claim has been updated to provided clarifying language while maintaining the same rejection. Applicant has amended claim 21 to recite “receiving a long hold action on the scrubber icon”. The amendment does not address the rejection which outlines the clarity issues which structure is receiving the long hold action. It appears the structure which “receives” the long hold action is the display device (see FIGS. 4, 6-7, [0102], [0113]), but this is not what is recited in the claim. The rejection further outlines additional clarity issues regarding the structure and function of the “selections”, and if “an indication of the minimum lumen area position, the distal reference point, or the proximal reference point” and the “location of the scrubber icon” recited in claim 21 is meant to refer to the indication of the distal reference point, the indication of the proximal reference point, and the indication of the minimum lumen area position, in addition to the first location of the scrubber icon, as recited in parent claim 16. Applicant has not addressed these parts of the rejection by amendment nor made remarks regarding these portions of the rejection of claim 21.
Therefore, the claims remain rejected and the rejection has been made final.
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that the header on page 10 of applicant’s response is “Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102”, however, it is noted that the rejections of the claims were made under 35 USC 103. Applicant appears to acknowledge this, by presenting arguments directed to how “obviousness” is defined under 103 and cited the MPEP.
Applicant then argues in the second from final paragraph of page 10 through the fifth paragraph 11
“Applicant submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found the claimed invention obvious. For example, claim 1 recites in part ‘a display unit coupled to the processor, the display unit being configured to show a display including the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel, a scrubber icon disposed in a location along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel, and a transverse cross- sectional image corresponding to the location, and an indication of the minimum lumen area, wherein the scrubber icon is moveable along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel, and wherein the minimum lumen area position is movable along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel by a user via the scrubber icon’ (emphasis added).
Cohen arguably does teach ‘automatic measurements corresponding to a vessel boundary’ and describes that ‘a minimum lumen area (MLA) 606 [is] displayed on the first view 604’ and such ‘measurements may also be shown on other views. For example, a marker 614 is placed at the MLA in the second view 610 that corresponds with the MLA 606 in the first view 604.’ See Cohen, ¶ 56.
Further, Cohen arguably teaches that ‘visualization 900... may be displayed on a monitor 108... [and] may include five different views of intraluminal data including a longitudinal view 702 and transverse views 704, 706, 708, and 709.’ Of the transverse views, ‘transverse view 708 may show a MLA of the lumen, and transverse view 709 may be manually moved by a user to display any position along the lumen... The indicator 726 may be a scrubber that may be moved by a user to view different views along the lumen’ See Cohen, ¶ 61 (emphasis added).
As described by Cohen and seen from the image in FIG. 9, the displayed
visualization includes all the transverse views, and it is the transverse view 709 that can be moved. However, it is not moved using the transverse view 707 that shows the MLA nor the marker 614 that is placed at the location of the MLA in FIG. 6. That is, the MLA marker discussed by Cohen is not movable. The fact that the view in transverse view 709 can be moved is unrelated to the MLA discussed by Cohen.
The Office admits that ‘views 704, 708, 706 are fixed’ but argues that transverse view 709 not being fixed and movement of scrubber 726 is analogous to the claimed modification of the MLA position. See prior Office Action, page 4. This is a gross mischaracterization of Cohen. Cohen clearly teaches and describes that view 708 shows the MLA. Nowhere within Coehn does it teach that this view can be adjusted, as admitted by the Office.
For the reasons outlined above, the reference fails to identically disclose at least the above emphasized language of claim 1. Independent claims 10 and 16 recite similar language to the language of claim 1 discussed above. As such, claims 10 and 16 define over the cited references for at least analogous reasons”.
In response, it appears applicant is not responding to the previous office action mailed 06/17/2025, as page 4 of this previous office action does not contain the remarks as by the applicant.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It is noted that the arguments presented are unsupported by objective evidence. Applicant is reminded that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, as the claims are rejected under 35 USC 103, it is noted that secondary reference Jenkins has been relied upon to disclose the limitations regarding the minimum lumen area position is movable along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel by a user via the scrubber icon and the step of receiving, via the graphical user interface and scrubber icon, an indication to modify the minimum lumen area position, please see, but not limited to, [0107]-[0113], [0149], [0165], FIGS. 8-10 of secondary reference Jenkins, as recited in the rejection below.
Therefore, the claims remain rejected and the rejections have been made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-10, 12-17, 19-20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recites “wherein the minimum lumen area position is movable along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel by a user via the scrubber icon” in lines 16-17, while support could be found for the user may move the scrubber to look for a more desirable location for the particular bookmark or indicator 422 (position of MLA), 424 (proximal reference point), 426 (distal reference point) by moving/translating he selected indicator/ bookmark 422, 424, 426 along the longitudinal section display 420 to determine if a more desirable location has been locate (see [0113]), if a more desirable location for the particular bookmark or indicator 422, 424, 426 is found, the user may long tap/hold the scrubber (box 456) while the scrubber is at the alternative/secondary location, causing a context menu to appear (see [0114);
However, this does not provide support for what is claimed, and no basis has been pointed to for these new limitations in applicant' s remarks. In the absence of support for the newly recited limitations, these claims and claims dependent thereon are deemed to constitute new matter. This is a NEW MATTER rejection.
Claims 10 and 16 are also rejected for reciting the same and/or limitations outlined above.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
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, 4-10, 12-17, 19-20, and 21 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the minimum lumen area position is movable along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel by a user via the scrubber icon” in lines 16-17, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the position of the minimum lumen area may be movable, which appears to indicates, although that it is unclear, that multiple “minimum” lumen areas concurrently exist within a single selected area of the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel currently being displayed on the display. It is unclear how, if there are multiple positions which correspond to minimum lumen areas, how a singular lumen area is determined to be “minimum”. Further, as outlined in the above rejection under §112(a), there is no support in applicant’s originally filed disclosure for the presently amended limitation, as it appears, from applicant’s disclosure that it is the icon or indicator which represents the minimum lumen area position which is movable via the scrubber icon, but not the actual minimum lumen area itself, which refers to a singularly determined point along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel.
Claims 10 and 16 are also rejected for reciting the same and/or limitations outlined above.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
Amended Claim 16 "display…an indication of the minimum lumen area" in line 19, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if applicant meant to refer to the earlier recited “minimum lumen area position”, or meant to refer to a minimum lumen area not corresponding to the previously recited position of the minimum lumen area.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
Claim 19 recites “a longitudinal section view of a blood vessel” in line 2, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel in immediate claim are meant to refer to the same “longitudinal section view” of the same “blood vessel” recited in parent claim 16, or if applicant meant to refer to a different longitudinal section view of the same blood vessel recited in the parent claim, or if applicant meant to refer to a different longitudinal section view of a different blood vessel that is recited in the parent claim.
Claim 20 is also rejected for reciting the same and/or limitations outlined above.
Claim 21 recites “receiving a long hold action on the scrubber icon; displaying a popup comprising selections corresponding to the minimum lumen area position, the distal reference point, and the proximal reference point; receiving, via the popup, an indication of the minimum lumen area position, the distal reference point, or the proximal reference point; and adjusting one the indicated one of the minimum lumen area position, the distal reference point, or the proximal reference point to the location of the scrubber icon”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how or what structure is “receiving” a long hold action on the scrubber icon – and how the scrubber icon is functionally arranged to transmit a long hold action.
It is also unclear what functional meaning applicant means to impart by reciting the term “selections” as to what the popup is comprised of and how the “selections” functionally corresponding to the minimum lumen area position, the distal reference point, and the proximal reference point. Comparable to the clarity issues found in first stanza of the claim outlined above, it is unclear what structure both functionally and structurally performs the “receiving” and how the popup, which is known to be a transient/temporally displayed graphic, is appearing to be recited as being capable functionally of transmitting a singular indication of a plural group of measurements including: the minimum lumen area position, the distal reference point, or the proximal reference point and to what structure the indication is transmitted thereto for reception. It is also unclear if the indication of the minimum lumen area position, the distal reference point, or the proximal reference point in the immediate claim is meant to refer to/is the same as the indication of the distal reference point, the indication of the proximal reference point, and the indication of the minimum lumen area recited in parent claim 16, on which claim 21 is dependent.
Similarly, it is unclear if the one the indicated one of the minimum lumen area position, the distal reference point, or the proximal reference point which is adjusted to the location of the scrubber icon, refer to the indication of the proximal reference point, and the indication of the minimum lumen area recited in parent claim 16, on which claim 21 is dependent, or if applicant meant to refer to the indication of the minimum lumen area position, the distal reference point, or the proximal reference point previously recited in the immediate claim which is different and/or separate than that recited in parent claim 16. It is also unclear if the location of the scrubber icon recited in the immediate claim refers to the first recited location of the scrubber icon in parent claim 16 or if applicant meant to refer to a different location as claim 16 recites that “the scrubber icon is moveable along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel”, meaning that it may be located at any one of a near unlimited/unknown number of a plurality of locations along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel.
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, 4-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US20200029932, hereafter “Cohen”), in view of Jenkins et al. (US20240245465, hereafter “Jenkins”)ꝉ.
ꝉSupported by the disclosure of Brown et al. (US20240245390, hereafter “Brown”).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 16, Cohen discloses intravascular imaging systems (FIG. 1) and a method for processing imaging data (FIG. 14), the method comprising:
an imaging catheter (see 102 in FIG. 1);
a processor coupled to the catheter (see 106 in FIG. 1), the processor configured to process imaging data received from the imaging catheter ([0039] processor 106 receives echo signals where the ultrasound image is reconstructed and then displayed on the monitor);
wherein the processor is configured to generate a longitudinal section view of a blood vessel from the imaging data ([0053] see FIG. 6 having imaging data corresponding to a straight you down the lumen otherwise discussed as being a longitudinal view);
wherein the processor is configured to identify a minimum lumen area position along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel ([0056] automatic measurements shown in FIG. 6 include a minimum lumen area), a distal reference point (see 830 in FIG. 7), and a proximal reference point (see 832 in FIG. 7);
a display unit coupled to the processor (see 108 in FIG. 1), the display unit being configured to show a display ([0039] image data reconstructed by the processor is displayed on the display) including the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel (see longitudinal view displayed in FIGS. 6-9), a scrubber icon disposed in a location along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel ([0061], FIG. 9, the indicator 726 represents a scrubber is movable by a user to view different views along the along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel/lumen), and a transverse cross-sectional image corresponding to the location ([0061] see the transverse cross-sectional image view 709 corresponding to the location), and an indication of the minimum lumen area position (see 614 in FIG. 7; 720 in FIG. 9).
And specifically, with regard to claims 1 and 10, Cohen discloses wherein the minimum lumen area position is movable along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel by a user ([0061], FIG. 9, the MLA may be manually moved by the user to be displayed along any position on the lumen).
And with specific regard to claim 10, Cohen discloses wherein the processor is configured to identify a minimum lumen area position along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel ([0056] automatic measurements shown in FIG. 6 include a minimum lumen area), a distal reference point (see 830 in FIG. 7) disposed distal of the minimum lumen area position, and a proximal reference point (see 832 in FIG. 7) disposed proximal of the minimum lumen area position ([0057] see as outlined in FIG. 7); and
wherein the display includes an indicator of the minimum lumen area position (see 614 in FIG. 7), an indicator of the distal reference point (see 830 in FIG. 7), and an indicator of the proximal reference point along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel (see 832 in FIG. 7).
And specifically, with regard to claim 16, Cohen discloses wherein processing the imaging data includes identifying a minimum lumen area position along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel ([0056] automatic measurements shown in FIG. 6 include a minimum lumen area), identifying a distal reference point along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel (see 830 in FIG. 7; 720 in FIG. 9), and identifying a proximal reference point along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel (see 832 in FIG. 7; 724 in FIG. 9);
display a graphical user interface including the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel and an indication of the minimum lumen area position (see graphical user interfaces 700 in FIG. 7 and 900 in FIG. 9, respectfully, which depict the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel along with text indications and markers shown by reference characters 611, 614, 812, 612, 820, 620, 622, 624, 722, 720, 726, 830, 832, 832, 834, 822, etc., Oxford Dictionary of Computer Science defines the meaning of a graphical user interface to include, but not be limited to, a displayed window that makes use of icons, slider bars, as well textual and/or graphical information. Accordingly, the displayed windows of 700 and 900 are each interpreted to be a graphical user interface), a scrubber icon disposed in a location along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel ([0061], FIG. 9, the indicator 726 represents a scrubber is movable by a user to view different views along the along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel/lumen), a transverse cross-sectional image corresponding to the location ([0061] see the transverse cross-sectional image view 709 corresponding to the location), an indication of the distal reference point (see 830 in FIG. 7; 720 in FIG. 9), an indication of the proximal reference point (see 832 in FIG. 7; 724 in FIG. 9), and an indication of the minimum lumen area position (see 614 in FIG. 7; 720 in FIG. 9);
receiving, via the graphical user interface, an indication to modify* the minimum lumen area position ([0050] the arrows of the visualization of the MLA may move in the direction specified by the instructions); and
updating the graphical user interface to depict the modified* minimum lumen area position ([0061], FIG. 9, the MLA may be manually moved by the user to be displayed along any position on the lumen),
wherein the scrubber icon is moveable along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel ([0061], FIG. 9, the indicator 726 represents a scrubber is movable by a user to view different views along the along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel/lumen).
While Cohen discloses the scrubber icon being displayed on the longitudinal section view as cited above, Cohen is silent on the minimum lumen area position being movable along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel by a user as being via the scrubber icon for claims 1 and 10; and the step of receiving, via the graphical user interface an indication to modify the minimum lumen area position as being via the graphical user interface and scrubber icon, and the following step of updating the graphical user interface to depict the modified minimum lumen area position, in response to the prior recited step of receiving step via the graphical user interface and scrubber icon, for claim 16.
However, in the same field of endeavor, for claims 1 and 10, Jenkins teaches wherein the minimum lumen area position is movable along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel by a user via the scrubber icon ([0107]-[0113], [0149], [0165], FIG. 8, the user may input any commands to the system 100 via a mouse, a mouse click, cursor, pointer, joystick, physical button, pressure of depressing a physical button, a control pad, finger or touch of the finger on a screen, with a stylus or touch of a stylus on a screen, or by any other means, including but not limited to, the user may select and drag the indicator 882 to a different location, the indicators 882 and 862 being each referred to as a scrubber, marker, marking, pointer, or by any other suitable term, indicator/scrubber 882 corresponding to position of the MLA 872 and scrubber 862, the indicator 865 is moved to a different location, the indicator 882 may be moved to the corresponding location, see FIGS. 8-10 in Brown which correspond to FIGS. 8-10, which correspond to FIG. 8 of Jenkins as FIGS. 8-10 show reference numerals for the slider 862 in higher resolution) and
And Jenkins also teaches the steps of claim 16 for receiving, via the graphical user interface and scrubber icon, an indication to modify* the minimum lumen area position ([0107]-[0113], [0149], [0165], FIG. 8, the user may input any commands to the system 100 via a mouse, a mouse click, cursor, pointer, joystick, physical button, pressure of depressing a physical button, a control pad, finger or touch of the finger on a screen, with a stylus or touch of a stylus on a screen, or by any other means, including but not limited to, the user may select and drag the indicator 882 to a different location, the indicators 882 and 862 being each referred to as a scrubber, marker, marking, pointer, or by any other suitable term, indicator/scrubber 882 corresponding to position of the MLA 872 and scrubber 862, the indicator 865 is moved to a different location, the indicator 882 may be moved to the corresponding location, see FIGS. 8-10 in Brown which correspond to FIGS. 8-10, which correspond to FIG. 8 of Jenkins as FIGS. 8-10 show reference numerals for the slider 862 in higher resolution);
receiving, via the graphical user interface an indication to modify the minimum lumen area position ([0107]-[0113], [0149], [0165], FIG. 8, the indicator/scrubber 882 corresponding to position of the MLA 872 and scrubber 862, the indicator 865 is moved to a different location, the indicator 882 may be moved to the corresponding location, see FIGS. 8-10 in Brown which correspond to FIGS. 8-10, which correspond to FIG. 8 of Jenkins as FIGS. 8-10 show reference numerals for the slider 862 in higher resolution).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intravascular systems and the methods for processing data disclosed by Cohen with the minimum lumen area position being movable along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel by a user as being via the scrubber icon for claims 1 and 10; and the step of receiving, via the graphical user interface an indication to modify the minimum lumen area position as being via the graphical user interface and scrubber icon, and the following step of updating the graphical user interface to depict the modified minimum lumen area position, in response to the prior recited step of receiving step via the graphical user interface and scrubber icon, for claim 16, as taught by Jenkins in order to provide the physician with the location of the treatment device relative to other previously marked locations, such as areas of occlusions or lesions, or surrounding structures in addition to providing the physician with the ability to quickly view IVUS images of any location along the vessel being treated, including IVUS images of the current location of the treatment device ([0005] of Jenkins).
*For the purposes of examination, the limitations have been interpreted in the alternative, requiring the modification of the minimum lumen area position and then updating the graphical user interface to depict the modified minimum lumen area position; or requiring the modification of the distal reference point and then updating the graphical user interface to depict the modified distal reference point; or requiring the modification of the proximal reference point and then updating the graphical user interface to depict the modified proximal reference point.
And specifically, with regard to claims 4-5 and 12, Cohen, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically Cohen discloses wherein the display includes an indicator of the distal reference point and the indicator of the distal reference point is movable along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel by a user ([0061], FIG. 9, the distal reference point may be manually moved by the user to be displayed along any position on the lumen).
And specifically, with regard to claims 6-7 and 13, Cohen, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically Cohen discloses wherein the display includes an indicator of the proximal reference point and the indicator of the proximal reference point is movable along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel by a user ([0061], FIG. 9, the proximal reference point may be manually moved by the user to be displayed along any position on the lumen).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Cohen, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically Cohen discloses wherein the processor is configured to identify a second minimum lumen area along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel ([0057] after the processor generates data to identify the plaque burden which has been automatically measured by the processor, the marker for the MLA is placed at the location where the plaque burden is the highest and the lumen is the smallest).
Regarding claims 9 and 15, Cohen, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically Cohen discloses wherein the processor is configured to identify a secondary reference point along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel ([0052], FIG. 5 the imaging data may show other reference data [secondary reference] areas [point(s)] along the lumen).
Regarding claim 17, Cohen, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically Cohen discloses wherein modifying* the minimum lumen area position includes translating a bookmark corresponding to the minimum lumen area position along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel to the secondary position ([0057] after the processor generates data to identify the plaque burden which has been automatically measured by the processor, the marker for the MLA from the visualization in FIG. 6 is placed at the location where the plaque burden is the highest and the lumen is the smallest in the visualization in FIG. 7).
*Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation has been interpreted in the alternative, requiring modifying the minimum lumen area position to a secondary position includes translating a bookmark corresponding to the minimum lumen area position along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel to the secondary position; or requiring modifying the distal reference point to a secondary position includes translating a bookmark corresponding the distal reference point long the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel to the secondary position; or requiring modifying the proximal reference point to a secondary position includes translating a bookmark corresponding to the proximal reference point along the longitudinal section view of the blood vessel to the secondary position.
Regarding claim 19, Cohen, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically Cohen discloses wherein processing the imaging data with a processor to generate a longitudinal section view of a blood vessel includes processing the imaging data prior to treating the blood vessel with a stent ([0057], FIG.7, the visualization is used to visualize a portion of the lumen as a potential landing zone for a stent placement).
Regarding claim 20, Cohen, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically Cohen discloses wherein processing the imaging data with a processor to generates a longitudinal section view of a blood vessel includes processing the imaging data after treating the blood vessel with a stent ([0063]-[0064], FIG. 11, the processor guides the user to move the probe to acquire new image data inclusive of the location where the stent has been placed).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen, in view of Jenkins, as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Liu et al. (US20150157295, hereafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 21, Cohen, in view of Jenkins, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically Cohen discloses wherein the receiving, via the graphical user interface and the scrubber icon, the indication to modify the minimum lumen area position, the distal reference point, or the proximal reference point comprises:
receiving a long hold action on the scrubber icon ([0061], [0077], a user moves the scrubber icon 726 to view different views along the lumen which is shown in transverse view 709, the user moves the scrubber icon/indicator 726 by sliding an indicator along a longitudinal image of the lumen; therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term sliding is interpreted to read on the limitation of a “long press action”, since the scrubber has to be selected/pressed for an extended action in order to functionally slide the scrubber icon along the longitudinal section view);
displaying a text box comprising selections corresponding to the minimum lumen area position, the distal reference point, and the proximal reference point ([0061], FIG.9, text box 853 displays data corresponding to the entire lumen or a portion of the lumen, such as MLA, average diameter, minimum area, maximum area, and other data; therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the other data is interpreted to read on being also inclusive of the distal reference point and the proximal reference point);
receiving, via the text box an indication of the minimum lumen area position, the distal reference point, or the proximal reference point ([0061], [0071], [0075]-[0077], FIGS. 9, 14, the guided workflow may be provided as a series of prompts, instructions, and visualizations that are displayed on a display device, such as but not limited to in prompt/step 1414 for displaying the imaging data on a display device including two to more views of the lumen showing different areas along the vessel, such as a MLA, MSA, and proximal and distal reference points. This step includes on the display device are a plurality of views including but not limited to the transverse view 704 which shows a distal end of an area of interest, the transverse view 706 shows a proximal end of the area of interest, the transverse view 708 shows an MLA of the lumen, and the transverse view 709 is manually moved by a user to display any position along the lumen, therefore, the cited disclosure of “any position along the lumen” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to be inclusive of the distal end, the proximal end, and the MLA of the lumen); and
adjusting one the indicated one of the minimum lumen area position, the distal reference point, or the proximal reference point to the location of the scrubber icon ([0069], [0077] the operator selects various views for comparison, for example by sliding an indicator along a longitudinal image of the lumen and the operator may be able to select any of the indicators on the longitudinal views and drag the indicators to view imaging data on neighboring frames; therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited disclosure by selecting any one of the indicators and dragging the indicators to a neighboring frame, reads on the limitation of the adjusting of the position of the MLA, distal and proximal reference points, which, brim may correspond to the location of the scrubber icon); and specifically, Jenkins discloses receiving a long press action via the scrubber icon ([0110] the user selects and drag the indicator/scrubber icon 862 to different locations along the ILD 850, the user may use a mouse to click on a location, or via a mouse, a mouse click, cursor, pointer, joystick, physical button, pressure of depressing a physical button, a control pad, finger or touch of the finger on a screen, with a stylus or touch of a stylus on a screen, or by any other means, the user may move the indicator 862 to different locations along the ILD 850); but does not explicitly disclose the text box as being a pop up.
However, in solving the same problem, Liu discloses in response to a long press action, a pop-up graphic being displayed on the display of an ultrasound device ([0022] the user may make a long push by push button, in response, on the display, the display pops up a menu with operating buttons, each of the buttons related to at least one function).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Cohen with the display and receipt of input being via a pop up graphic as taught by Liu in order for the user easily operating the ultrasound system or processing the image ([0021] of Liu).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY SHAFQAT whose telephone number is (571)272-4054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-5:30PM MST.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571) 270-1790. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights