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 .
Applicant’s response to the Non-final Office Action dated 08/25/2025, filed with the office on 11/21/2025, has been entered and made of record.
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant’s amendments made to claim 42, the rejection of record under 35 U.S.C. 101 with respect to claim 42 has been withdrawn.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18, 21 and 42 are pending. Claim 42 is amended. Claims 19, 20 and 22-41 were previously cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 21, 2025 with respect to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been fully considered; but they are not found persuasive. Specifically, in page 11 of its reply, Applicant argues in second paragraph that the Office Action interprets the registering processes as merely “overlaying images” which do not provide accurate results required for medical use. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed feature registration (combining features from two images) includes overlaying two semi-transparent images to merge the visual features of the two images to obtain a third image with a certain level of accuracy. Therefore, an image analyst can stack multiple semi-transparent images and achieve the resulted image registration as recited in independent claim 1. Applicant further argues in page 11, fifth-sixth paragraph that the claims as a whole integrated the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims provide a more accurate diagnosis of a client. Examiner respectfully disagrees as accurate diagnosis of a client based on the recited registered images is not a claimed limitation. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed on November 21, 2025 with respect to rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered; but they are not found persuasive. Specifically, in page 13 of its reply, Applicant argues in second paragraph that the technical means of Kim are different from the instant application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the primary reference Kunio discloses intravascular and extravascular image registration—Kunio, ¶0007: “co-registration may refer to the alignment of functional (intravascular imaging) and anatomical images (coronary angiography)”. However, Kunio does not explicitly disclose a secondary registration step. In the analogous field of medical image processing, Kim introduces a secondary registration step— Kim, ¶0021: “perform a second registration by registering a second medical image, having a different modality than a modality of the first medical images, with the registration image”. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of merging medical image data from different imaging modalities into a single image in order to improve diagnosis and guided interventional procedures.
Consequently, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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.
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 limitations are: “first obtaining module”, “second obtaining module”, “primary registration module”, “secondary registration module” in claim 21.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, these are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structures described in the applicant’s drawings: schematic depicted in Fig. 4 and applicant’s specification: ¶0243: “a processing system includes any system having a processor such as, for example, a digital signal processor (DSP), a microcontroller, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or a microprocessor” as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations 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 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 1-18, 21 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1 and 21 respectively recite a method and an apparatus for image registration. With respect to analysis of independent claim 1 and 21:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claims are directed to a method and an apparatus, therefore, the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, the limitations of “obtaining a first feature information”, “obtaining a second feature information”, “performing a primary registration on the first feature information and the second feature information to obtain a third feature information”, and “determining, based on the confidence of the target image, a movement indication for moving the image capturing device to capture the target object”5, as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind of a person, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). That is, an analyst reviewing the images, may obtain feature information (interpreted as images containing information) and register the information (interpreted as overlaying images). This is the concept that falls under the grouping of abstract ideas mental processes, i.e., a concept performed in the human mind, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion of an analyst.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception”. Therefore, additional elements, or a combination of additional elements in the claim, are required to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements/limitations in the claims, i.e., obtaining and registration modules merely regarded as adding insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception, and do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the above-mentioned additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claims fail under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/limitations to perform the steps, amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1 and 21 are not patent eligible.
Further, with regard to dependent claims 2-18 and 42 viewed individually, these additional steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as an abstract idea, and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 21 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunio (US 2022/0104786 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0332461 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kunio teaches, A method for registering an extravascular image with an intravascular image, (Kunio, ¶0040: “a method to select an appropriate method to coregister one or more intravascular images with one or more angiography images”; applicant’s specification, ¶0130: “the extravascular image may be a coronary angiography image”) comprising: a first obtaining step: obtaining a first feature information of a blood vessel segment of interest in the intravascular image, wherein the first feature information includes internal contour information (Kunio, ¶0049: “detecting an intravascular imaging catheter path… detecting a vessel contour of a targeted region”) and internal branch information of the blood vessel segment of interest; (Kunio, ¶0064: “branches, that can be detected in both angiography data and the intravascular data”) a second obtaining step: obtaining a second feature information of a reference blood vessel in the extravascular image, (Kunio, ¶0050: “the vessel contours preferably are detected for each selected angiography frame (see e.g., step S10031”) wherein the reference blood vessel is an entire blood vessel in which the blood vessel segment of interest is located, (Kunio, ¶0050: “the angiography frames with the contrast media in the targeted vessel preferably are selected”) and the second feature information includes external contour information (Kunio, ¶0050: “the vessel contours preferably are detected for each selected angiography frame”) and external branch information of the reference blood vessel; (Kunio, ¶0064: “branches, that can be detected in both angiography data and the intravascular data”) primary registration step: performing a primary registration on the first feature information and the second feature information to (Kunio, ¶0007: “co-registration may refer to the alignment of functional (intravascular imaging) and anatomical images (coronary angiography)”) obtain a third feature information, wherein the third feature information (Kunio, ¶0007: “co-registering angiography imaging with intravascular imaging includes determining where along the longitudinal silhouette of the coronary artery in an angiography image”) includes external contour information and external branch information of a target blood vessel segment (Kunio, ¶0004: “The longitudinal silhouettes of the coronary artery are displayed on a monitor to help an interventional cardiologist guide a catheter insertion to a targeted region”) that is in the extravascular image and corresponding to the blood vessel segment of interest; and (Kunio, ¶0041: “The imaging pullback path may represent the co-registration path which may be a region of interest or a targeted region of the predetermined area (e.g., the blood vessel)”). However, Kunio does not explicitly teach, secondary registration step: performing a secondary registration on the first feature information and the third feature information to obtain a target registration result.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Kim teaches, secondary registration step: performing a secondary registration on the first feature information and the third feature information to obtain a target registration result. (Kim, ¶0021: “perform a second registration by registering a second medical image, having a different modality than a modality of the first medical images, with the registration image”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kunio using the teachings of Kim to introduce a second registration. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of combining medical data obtained from different imaging modalities to guide a cardiologist during an interventional procedure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Kunio and Kim to obtain the invention in claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, it recites an apparatus with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of apparatus claim 21 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in method claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Kunio and Kim presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim. In addition, Kunio teaches, An apparatus for registering an extravascular image with an intravascular image, (Kunio, ¶0009: “apparatuses and systems that operate to select (e.g., automatically) an appropriate method and perform co-registration”).
Regarding claim 42, Kunio in view of Kim teaches A non-transitory storage medium, which stores a plurality of instructions for a processor to load and execute the method for registering an extravascular image with an intravascular image according to claim 1. (Kunio, ¶0086: “The CPU 1201 is configured to read and perform computer-executable instructions stored in a storage medium. The computer-executable instructions may include those for the performance of the methods and/or calculations described herein. The system 1200 may include one or more additional processors in addition to CPU”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Please note: final allowability is subjected to overcoming the abstract idea rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
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 MEHRAZUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Saini Amandeep can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/MEHRAZUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662