DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 28, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
This action is in response to the applicant’s arguments filed on October 28, 2025. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, and 14 are amended. Claim(s) 5 and 13 are unchanged. Thus, claims 1-14 are pending for examination in this application.
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:
“receive, via the input device a user input” in independent claim 1, dependent claim 8, independent claim 11, and independent claim 14
With respect to the first prong of this analysis, a claim element that does not include the term “means” or “step” triggers a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply. When the claim limitation does not use the term “means,” examiners should determine whether the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6 does not apply is overcome. The presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder (a term that is simply a substitute for the term “means”). The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for.” Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). This list is not exhaustive, and other generic placeholders may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6.
The claims independent claim 1 and independent claim 14 as per MPEP §2181 recite the generic placeholder, modified by functional language, and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function invoking interpretation
under §112(f).
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.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al, US 20200129147 in view of Cai et al, WO 2021062006.
Regarding claim 1, Nair teaches a system comprising:
an intravascular imaging catheter configured for intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) (see Nair, Fig. 1, 100 intraluminal imaging system and 102 intraluminal device, Paragraph [0036], “the intraluminal device 102 can be a catheter, guide wire, guide catheter, pressure wire, and/or flow wire in various embodiments,” and Paragraph [0037], “The intraluminal imaging system 100 (or intravascular imaging system) can be any type of imaging system suitable for use in the lumens or vasculature of a patient. In some embodiments, the intraluminal imaging system 100 is an intraluminal ultrasound (IVUS)
and a processor circuit configured for communication with the intravascular imaging catheter (see Nair, Paragraph [0009], “an intraluminal ultrasound imaging system, including: a processor circuit configured for communication with an intraluminal ultrasound imaging catheter”) and an input device, wherein the processor circuit is configured to: control the intravascular imaging catheter to obtain an intravascular image while the intravascular imaging catheter is positioned within a blood vessel of a patient (see Nair, Paragraph [0046], “The processing system 106 and the monitor 108 are integrated in a single component. For example, the system 100 can include a touch screen device, including a housing having a touch screen display and a processor. The system 100 can include any suitable input device, such as a touch sensitive pad or touch screen display, keyboard/mouse, joystick, button, etc., for a user to select options shown on the monitor 108. The processing system 106, the monitor 108, the input device, and/or combinations thereof can be referenced as a controller of the system 100,” and Paragraph [0045], “the device 102 can be utilized within any suitable anatomy and/or body lumen of the patient”),
wherein the intravascular image comprises a cross-sectional view of the blood vessel distinct from a longitudinal view of the blood vessel (see Nair, Fig. 5, 510 IVUS image cross-sectional view of blood vessel and 520 longitudinal view of the blood vessel, Paragraph [0057], “The automatically computed vessel lumen boundary may be used for example in computing additional variables such as lumen diameter or lumen cross-sectional area, which may be useful in making clinical decisions such as stent sizing,” and Paragraph [0059], “an Image Longitudinal Display (ILD) 520 of the vessel, comprising stacked cross-sections of the series of successive tomographic images, forming a longitudinal cross-sectional image of the vessel”);
receive, via the input device, a plurality of user inputs in the cross-sectional view (see Nair, Paragraph [0030], “The vessel border selection system may be implemented as a set of logical branches and mathematical operations, whose outputs are viewable on a display, and operated by a control process executing on a processor that accepts user inputs (e.g., from a user interface such as a keyboard, mouse, or touchscreen interface), and that is in communication with one or more medical imaging sensors (e.g., intraluminal ultrasound sensors)”),
wherein the plurality of user inputs identify a first circumferential region within the cross-sectional view (see Nair, Paragraph [0074], “In step 830, the vessel border selection system analyzes the selected image to identify one or more potential borders in the image, such as a circumference of the blood vessel in the image,” the borders may be altered to display a first circumferential region),
wherein the first circumferential region comprises a tissue type within the cross-sectional view (see Nair, Paragraph [0082], “For example, the vessel border can be the border between the vessel tissue and surrounding tissue. The border can an automatically drawn contour around an identified structure, which could be the lumen, vessel, chamber, valve, thrombus, calcium, neighboring artery or vein (blood vessel), stent contour, or other structure”),
wherein the first circumferential region comprises a first boundary in the cross-sectional view and an opposite, second boundary in the cross-sectional view, wherein the plurality of user inputs comprises a first user input identifying the first boundary (see Nair, Paragraph [0013], “a first user input selecting one of the border contours”)
and a second user input identifying the second boundary (see Nair, Paragraph [0012], “a second user input to edit the selected border contour,” Fig. 6 and Paragraph [0066], “Also visible is an Manual Adjust button 630 which, in some embodiments, enables the clinician or other user to adjust the individual points comprising the selected lumen boundary 614”);
output, to a display in communication with the processor circuit, a screen display comprising: the cross-sectional view (see Nair, Paragraph [0045], “The processing system 106 outputs image data such that an image of the vessel or lumen 120, such as a cross-sectional IVUS image of the lumen 120, is displayed on the monitor 108”);
and a visual representation of at least one of the first circumferential region or the first angle measurement (see Nair, Fig. 7, and Paragraph [0069], “a plurality of points 720 that define the lumen boundary 714,” boundaries may be adjusted by a user to represent a circumferential region).
Nair does not expressively teach
determine a first angle measurement of the first circumferential region
However, Cai in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches
determine a first angle measurement of the first circumferential region (see Cai, Fig. 7 and Paragraph [0124], “For one or more representative images 603a, 603b of cross-sections of a blood vessel may be shown. … In some instances, a visual representation of the calcification angle/arc may be shown on the display output 601. For example, the visual representation of the calcification angle/arc may include an arc or arcing line disposed along a boundary region of the images 603a, 603b,” Fig. 8 and Paragraph [0125], “a circumferential section 709 (e.g., having a larger, more circumferential calcification angle/arc)” Fig. 9 and Paragraph [0128], “a first numerical calcium score may be determined by observing the visual representation 911 of a calcium/calcification arc of the intravascular lesion, a two-dimensional calcium map of the blood vessel 915, the three-dimensional calcium map of the blood vessel 917, or combinations thereof,” a calcium score of the calcification angle/arc is considered to be a first angle measurement and the calcification arc is considered to be a first circumferential region);
The combination of Nair and Cai are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor of intravascular imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine calcification angle/arc, display a calcium map, determine a numerical calcium score, include an ultrasound line to the representation, include an arc or arcing line along a boundary region, and include indicators to mark reference points in the system of Cai in the system of Nair to determine a treatment strategy for treating an intravascular lesion in a blood vessel (see Cai Paragraph [0128]).
Regarding claim 2, Nair in view of Cai further teaches the system of claim 1,
wherein the visual representation of the first angle measurement comprises a numerical value (see Cai, Paragraph [0128], “For example, a first numerical calcium score may be determined by observing the visual representation 911 of a calcium/calcification arc of the intravascular lesion, a two-dimensional calcium map of the blood vessel 915, the three-dimensional calcium map of the blood vessel 917, or combinations thereof”).
The rationale of claim 1 has been applied herein.
Regarding claim 3, Nair in view of Cai further teaches the system of claim 1,
wherein the visual representation of the first circumferential region comprises an overlay visually distinguishing the first circumferential region from a remaining portion of the cross-sectional view (see Nair, Fig. 7 and Paragraph [0069], “FIG. 7 shows an example lumen border contour editing screen display 700, in accordance with at least one embodiment of the present disclosure. In some embodiments, if the clinician or other user selects the Manual Adjust button 630 from FIG. 6, or a similar control, the system shows the selected tomographic image 710 along with the selected lumen boundary 714. However, the system also shows a plurality of points 720 that define the lumen boundary 714. By selecting and moving these points (e.g., using a touchscreen, keyboard, mouse, or trackball), the clinician or other user is able to alter the lumen boundary 714,” the user may alter the boundary to display a first circumferential region and Nair, Paragraph [0079], “In step 870, after a candidate border contour has been selected with a border selection input, the system can display the image of the blood vessel with the selected candidate border overlaid on the image”).
The rationale of claim 1 has been applied herein.
Regarding claim 4, Nair in view of Cai further teaches the system of claim 1,
wherein the cross-sectional view comprises a circumferential image, and wherein the visual representation of the first circumferential region an arc- shaped portion of the circumferential image (see Cai, Fig. 7 and Paragraph [0124], “In some instances, a visual representation of the calcification angle/arc may be shown on the display output 601. For example, the visual representation of the calcification angle/arc may include an arc or arcing line disposed along a boundary region of the images 603a, 603b,” the calcification angle/arc represents a circumferential region).
The rationale of claim 1 has been applied herein.
Regarding claim 5, Nair in view of Cai further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the input device comprises a touch input device (see Nair, Paragraph [0046], “For example, the system 100 can include a touch screen device”),
and wherein the first user input comprises a start of a touch input and the second user input comprises an end of the touch input (see Nair, Paragraph [0069], “the system also shows a plurality of points 720 that define the lumen boundary 714. By selecting and moving these points (e.g., using a touchscreen, keyboard, mouse, or trackball), the clinician or other user is able to alter the lumen boundary 714,” the clinician can select a first lumen boundary point which is considered to be a first user input; the other user can select a second lumen boundary point which is considered to be a second user input).
The rationale of claim 1 has been applied herein.
Regarding claim 6, Nair in view of Cai further teaches the system of claim 5,
wherein the touch input comprises a line segment within the cross-sectional view, and wherein at least one of the first circumferential region or the first angle measurement is representative of an arc-shaped portion of the cross-sectional view (see Fig. 7 and Cai, Paragraph [0124], “In some instances, a visual representation of the calcification angle/arc may be shown on the display output 601. For example, the visual representation of the calcification angle/arc may include an arc or arcing line disposed along a boundary region of the images 603a, 603b”).
The rationale of claim 5 has been applied herein.
Regarding claim 7, Nair in view of Cai further teaches the system of claim 1,
wherein the screen display further comprises: a first indicator positioned relative to the cross-sectional view to identify a first location of the first user input; and a second indicator positioned relative to the cross-sectional view to identify a second location of the second user input (see Nair, Paragraph [0069], “the system also shows a plurality of points 720 that define the lumen boundary 714. By selecting and moving these points (e.g., using a touchscreen, keyboard, mouse, or trackball), the clinician or other user is able to alter the lumen boundary 714. This option may be used, for example, if the clinician or other user is dissatisfied with all of the choices offered by the lumen border detection algorithm. In such an instance, the clinician or other user could, for example, select the closest match from the available choices, and then hand edit one or more points until the lumen boundary 714 matches the user's expectation,” the clinician can select a first lumen boundary point which is considered to be a first user input; the other user can select a second lumen boundary point which is considered to be a second user input).
The rationale of claim 1 has been applied herein.
Regarding claim 13, Nair in view of Cai further teaches the system of claim 1,
wherein the body lumen comprises a blood vessel, and wherein the tissue type comprises calcium within a wall of the blood vessel (see Cai, Paragraph [0127], “On the same display unit or separately, a calcium map 907 may be displayed, illustrating a blood vessel 909 and a representation 911 of a calcification angle/arc”).
The rationale of claim 1 has been applied herein.
As per Claim 14, Claim 14 claims a method to receive an intraluminal image with an intraluminal device as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 1.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al, US 20200129147 in view of Cai et al, WO 2021062006 in view of Gopinath et al, US 20200294659.
Regarding claim 8, Nair in view of Cai does not expressively teach the system of claim 1,
wherein the plurality of user inputs is configured to identify a second circumferential region,
wherein the second circumferential region comprises the tissue type within the cross- sectional view, wherein the plurality of user inputs comprises a third user input changing the second boundary,
wherein the second circumferential comprises the first boundary and the changed second boundary, wherein the processor circuit is further configured to:
determine a second angle measurement for the second circumferential region;
and change the screen display; to include a visual representation of at least one of the second circumferential region or the second angle; and to remove the visual representation of at least one of the first circumferential region or the first angle
However, Gopinath in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches
wherein the plurality of user inputs is configured to identify a second circumferential region (see Gopinath, Fig. 2A, 31b, and Paragraph [0094], “The user interface may include one or more images or representations of an artery from various viewing angles and sectional views,” 31b is the second circumferential region displayed on the user interface),
wherein the second circumferential region comprises the tissue type within the cross- sectional view, wherein the plurality of user inputs comprises a third user input changing the second boundary (see Gopinath, Paragraph [0098], “The interactions with graphical user interfaces support a workflow by which users can move and change various dimensions relative to the imaged artery and have greater flexible when selecting a stent and where it will be deployed,” users represent multiple users therefore a third user and can change the second boundary),
wherein the second circumferential comprises the first boundary and the changed second boundary, wherein the processor circuit is further configured to (see Gopinath, Fig. 2A, A1 and B1, A1 is considered to be a first boundary and B1 is considered to be a changed second boundary):
determine a second angle measurement for the second circumferential region (see Gopinath, Fig. 2A and Paragraph [0094], “The total angle for calcium is the sum of arcs 31 and 31b,” calcium arc 31b has an angle measurement that is summed with calcium arc 31 angle measurement to obtain a total angle);
and change the screen display; to include a visual representation of at least one of the second circumferential region or the second angle; and to remove the visual representation of at least one of the first circumferential region or the first angle (see Gopinath, Paragraph [0088], “The systems and method described herein can display various representations and metrics relating to detected calcium and one or more arterial layers or measurements relating thereto”).
The combination of Nair, Cai, and Gopinath are analogous art because they are all in the same field of endeavor of intravascular imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention move the indicators along the lumen by the user, to calculate calcification angle/arc, include representations of an artery from various views and show two different angles, and move markers on the image in the system of Gopinath in the system of Nair in view of Cai to help inform the user decision making as suitable for de-bulking or stenting (see Gopinath Paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claim 9, Nair in view of Cai in view of Gopinath further teaches the system of claim 8,
wherein the third user input comprises a movement of a handle in the screen display from the second boundary to the changed second boundary (see Nair, Paragraph [0066], “Also visible is an Manual Adjust button 630 which, in some embodiments, enables the clinician or other user to adjust the individual points comprising the selected lumen boundary 614,” the individual points are considered to be the handles that change the second boundary).
The rationale of claim 8 has been applied herein.
Regarding claim 11, Nair in view of Cai does not expressively teach the system of claim 1,
wherein the plurality of user inputs is configured to identify a second circumferential region,
wherein the second circumferential region comprises the tissue type within the cross- sectional view, wherein the second circumferential region comprises a third boundary and an opposite, fourth boundary,
wherein the plurality of user inputs comprises a third user input identifying the third boundary and a fourth user input identifying the fourth boundary, wherein the processor circuit is configured to:
determine a second angle measurement for the second circumferential region
wherein the screen display comprises a visual representation of at least one of the first circumferential region or the second angle measurement simultaneously as the visual representation of at least one of the first circumferential region or the first angle measurement
However, Gopinath in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches
wherein the plurality of user inputs is configured to identify a second circumferential region (see Gopinath, Fig. 2A, 31b, and Paragraph [0094], “The user interface may include one or more images or representations of an artery from various viewing angles and sectional views,” 31b is the second circumferential region displayed on the user interface),
wherein the second circumferential region comprises the tissue type within the cross- sectional view, wherein the second circumferential region comprises a third boundary and an opposite, fourth boundary (see Gopinath, Fig. 2A, A1 and B1, A1 is considered to be a third boundary and B1 is considered to be a fourth boundary),
wherein the plurality of user inputs comprises a third user input identifying the third boundary and a fourth user input identifying the fourth boundary, wherein the processor circuit is configured to (see Gopinath, Paragraph [0098], “The interactions with graphical user interfaces support a workflow by which users can move and change various dimensions relative to the imaged artery and have greater flexible when selecting a stent and where it will be deployed,” users represent multiple users therefore a third and fourth user can define a third and fourth boundary):
determine a second angle measurement for the second circumferential region (see Gopinath, Fig. 2A and Paragraph [0094], “The total angle for calcium is the sum of arcs 31 and 31b,” calcium arc 31b has an angle measurement that is summed with calcium arc 31 angle measurement to obtain a total angle);
wherein the screen display comprises a visual representation of at least one of the first circumferential region or the second angle measurement simultaneously as the visual representation of at least one of the first circumferential region or the first angle measurement (see Gopinath, Fig. 2A, the first and second circumferential regions are considered to be 31 and 31b, the total angle is displayed however, since the total angle is the sum of both calcium arcs it would be obvious to also display the first angle and second angle measurements on the screen).
The combination of Nair, Cai, and Gopinath are analogous art because they are all in the same field of endeavor of intravascular imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention move the indicators along the lumen by the user, to calculate calcification angle/arc, include representations of an artery from various views and show two different angles, and move markers on the image in the system of Gopinath in the system of Nair in view of Cai to help inform the user decision making as suitable for de-bulking or stenting (see Gopinath Paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claim 12, Nair in view of Cai in view of Gopinath further teaches the system of claim 11,
wherein the processor circuit is configured to calculate a total angle measurement for the tissue type based on a sum of the first angle measurement and the second angle measurement, and wherein the screen display comprises a visual representation of the total angle measurement (see Gopinath, Fig. 2A,” the total angle is displayed based on the sum of angle measurements of calcium arcs 31 and 31b).
The rationale of claim 11 has been applied herein.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al, US 20200129147 in view of Cai WO 2021062006 in view of Kunio US 20210077037.
Regarding claim 10, Nair in view of Cai does not expressively teach the system of claim 1,
wherein the screen display further comprises: a first handle corresponding to the first boundary;
and a second handle corresponding to the second boundary.
However, Kunio in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches
wherein the screen display further comprises: a first handle corresponding to the first boundary (see Kunio, Paragraph [0017], “redraw the image of the at least one imaging modality such that a control bar or tool having two handles defines the redrawn image where both of the two handles align near or on an arc of the redrawn image based on the two touch points, and calculate and update the new orientation/position of the at least one imaging modality image or view based upon a release of the two touch points”, one of the two handles is considered to be a first handle);
and a second handle corresponding to the second boundary (see Kunio, Paragraph [0017], “redraw the image of the at least one imaging modality such that a control bar or tool having two handles defines the redrawn image where both of the two handles align near or on an arc of the redrawn image based on the two touch points, and calculate and update the new orientation/position of the at least one imaging modality image or view based upon a release of the two touch points”, one of the two handles is considered to be a second handle).
The combination of Nair, Cai, and Kunio are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor of intravascular imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a control bar or tool having two handles where both of the two handles align near or on an arc in the system of Kunio in the system of Nair in view of Cai to provide an ability to manipulate the vessel information (see Kunio Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIQUE JAMES whose telephone number is (703)756-1655. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 pm EST.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached on (571)270-3717. 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.
/DOMINIQUE JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 2666 /MING Y HON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666