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 Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112
Examiner notes that the 112(b) rejections of claim 8 regarding the display and the proximal sensor of claim 18 and the first group of claim 19 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/19/2025 with respect to the second cross-sectional image have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner first notes that no amendments nor arguments are made with respect to the longitudinal ultrasound image and the first cross-sectional image, thus the 112(b) rejections are maintained/updated in view of the amendments to the claims for such limitations.
Furthermore, regarding applicant’s arguments that “neither does the lack of statement specifically tying the second cross-sectional image to the at least on ultrasound transducer render such a claim indefinite” and that “recitation of such subject matter appears to be more of an issue of breadth which is entirely permissible under the statutes) rather than definiteness” (REMARKS pg. 1). Examiner respectfully disagrees in that the issues lies in reciting that the ultrasound transducer provides an ultrasound image and then multiple ultrasound images are subsequently recited (e.g. a longitudinal image, a first cross-sectional image, and a second cross-sectional image), thus rendering unclear the nature of such subsequently recited images and if they are the same as or different from the ultrasound image provided by the ultrasound probe. If these images (including the second cross-sectional image) are different from the image provided by the probe, it is unclear what the ultrasound image from the probe is used for and how the ultrasound images are displayed using the system as recited. In other words, it is unclear how such a system displays the recited ultrasound images without such structure for acquiring the images if they do not correspond to the ultrasound image provided by the ultrasound probe. For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments regarding the 112(b) rejection of claim 8 are not found persuasive and there rejection is maintained/updated in view of the amendments to the claims.
Regarding prior art
Applicant's arguments filed 09/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For example, applicant argues “as amended herein, claim 8 recites ‘a first cross-sectional ultrasound image of the artery, wherein a location of the first cross-sectional ultra-sound image from within the artery corresponds with a location of a first indicia positioned along the longitudinal ultrasound image of the artery; and a second cross-sectional ultra-sound image from within the artery, wherein a location of the second cross-sectional ultra-sound image from within the artery corresponds with a second indicia positioned along the longitudinal ultrasound image of the artery.’ Applicant submits that the proposed combination of Coehn and Sonck fails to teach or suggest such limitations” (REMARKS pg. 3). Examiner respectfully disagrees in that applicant’s arguments appear to be merely conclusory without providing specific arguments/evidence against the teachings of Cohen regarding the first cross-sectional image of the artery and the second cross-sectional ultrasound image of the artery relied upon for claims 9 and 10. Applicant’s arguments do not replace evidence where evidence is necessary (MPEP 2145). Examiner notes that the cited features above are in fact taught by Cohen in at least [0057] and [0087] by disclosing that cross-sectional ultrasound images at each location of the vessel are created. Since each ultrasound image is associated with a corresponding location in the longitudinal image (which is created during the pull-back method) it is noted that each image corresponds with indicia (e.g. a position, location, pixel value etc) positioned along the longitudinal ultrasound image accordingly. If applicant intends for the indicia to be something more specific than portions of the longitudinal image as noted above, examiner recommends amending the claim to more clearly define the nature of the indicia, however, examiner notes that Suzuki relied upon for claim 22 appears to teach the features intended by applicant in at least [0138] and examiner recommends evaluating all of the prior art references cited prior to filing a subsequent response. For at least the reasons listed above, applicant’s arguments regarding the teachings of Cohen and Sonck are not found persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a longitudinal ultrasound image of the artery”. It is unclear if the longitudinal ultrasound image is the same as the ultrasound image provided by the at least one ultrasound transducer recited previously or if this is a different ultrasound image (e.g. a different ultrasound image provided by the at least one ultrasound transducer or a different ultrasound image provided by a different/distinct ultrasound transducer). For examination purposes, it has been interpreted to mean any longitudinal ultrasound image of the artery, however, clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a first cross-sectional ultrasound image of the artery”. It is unclear if the first cross-sectional ultrasound image is the same as the ultrasound image provided by the at least one ultrasound transducer or a different image provided by either the at least one ultrasound transducer or a different ultrasound transducer. For examination purposes, it has been interpreted to mean any first cross-sectional ultrasound image, however, clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a second cross-sectional ultrasound image of the artery”. It is unclear if the second cross-sectional ultrasound image is the same as the ultrasound image provided by the at least one ultrasound transducer or a different image provided by either the at least one ultrasound transducer or a different ultrasound transducer. Examiner further notes that although there is a modifier “second” in front of the cross-sectional ultrasound image of the artery, it is unclear if this is the same or different from the first cross-sectional ultrasound image. For examination purposes, it has been interpreted to mean any second cross-sectional ultrasound image, however, clarification is required.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “a first indicia”. It is unclear if this is the same first indicia of claim 8 or if this is a different first indicia. For examination purposes, it has been interpreted to mean any first indicia, however, clarification is required.
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.
Claims 8 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 20230181140 A1), hereinafter Cohen in view of Sonck et al. (US 20220175260 A1), hereinafter Sonck.
Regarding claim 8,
Cohen teaches a system (at least fig. 1A can corresponding disclosure in at least [0032]) comprising:
A guidewire (at least fig. 1A (“pressure sensing guidewire”) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0010] and [0038]) having a pressure sensor ([0038] which discloses the pressure-guidewire 102 may include a pressure sensor)) associated with a distal portion of the guidewire ([0085] which discloses the distal pressure sensor of the pressure-sensing guidewire);
A catheter (at least fig. 1A (191) and fig. 1B (102) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0055] which discloses intraluminal imaging system can be an intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) imaging system and may include and intraluminal imaging device 102 such as a catheter) having at least one ultrasound transducer (at least fig. 1C (124) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0056]) configured to provide an ultrasound image of an artery ([0058] which discloses echo data received is processed to reconstruct and image of the lumen 120 which may be an artery);
A display system (at least fig. 1A (132) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0033]) configured to receive pressure sensor data from the guidewire and ultrasound image data from the catheter, the display system comprising instructions that are executable to cause the display system to generate a display image including, concurrently ([0091] which discloses each of these modalities may be displayed simultaneously):
An angiogram image of the artery ([0091] which discloses the registration of physiological data, intravascular data, and an angiogram image may be referred to as tri-registration. In some embodiments, tri-registration may refer to the correlation of three separate imaging modalities. Each of these modalities may be displayed simultaneously and [0058] which discloses lumen may be an artery),
A pressure map of pressure measurements (at least fig. 9 (914 and/or 916) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0122]) received from the pressure sensor ([0096] As the pressure-sensing guidewire is pulled through the patient vasculature, it may acquire pressure data 730. In an example, the pressure data 730 shown in FIG. 7 may be iFR measurements. However, the pressure data may be any suitable data, including FFR data, iFR data, or any other measurements or metrics relating to blood pressure, blood flow, or other physiological data acquired during a pullback of a guidewire ), and
A longitudinal ultrasound mage (at least fig. 9 (910) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0119]-[0120] which discloses the ILD 910 can be a stack of IVUS images acquired at various positions, such that the longitudinal view of the ILD is perpendicular to the radial cross-sectional view of the IVUS images) of the artery aligned with the pressure map (see fig. 9 in which the pressure map (914 and/or 916) is aligned with the longitudinal view); and
A first cross-sectional ultrasound image of the artery, wherein a location of the first cross-sectional ultrasound image from within the artery corresponds with a location of a first indicia positioned along the longitudinal ultrasound image of the artery ([0058] which discloses The processor 134 outputs image data such that an image of the lumen 120, such as a cross-sectional image of the vessel 120, is displayed on the display 132 and [0087] which discloses the intraluminal ultrasound data acquired at a particular position along the path 605 traveled by the intraluminal imaging device 102 may be received by the control system 130 and used to create a radial, cross-sectional image (e.g., an IVUS image) of the vessel 690 at that location. For each location along the vessel 690 through which the device 102 traveled, an IVUS image may be generated and associated with that location along the vessel 690 as will be described with reference to FIG. 8. Thus the location of a first cross-sectional ultrasound image from within the artery corresponds with a location of a first indicia (e.g. any indicia such as an image or other data at a location) positioned along the longitudinal ultrasound image)
A second cross-sectional ultrasound image from within the artery, wherein a location of the second cross-sectional ultrasound image from within the artery corresponds with a second indicia positioned along the longitudinal ultrasound image of the artery ([0058] which discloses The processor 134 outputs image data such that an image of the lumen 120, such as a cross-sectional image of the vessel 120, is displayed on the display 132 and [0087] which discloses the intraluminal ultrasound data acquired at a particular position along the path 605 traveled by the intraluminal imaging device 102 may be received by the control system 130 and used to create a radial, cross-sectional image (e.g., an IVUS image) of the vessel 690 at that location. For each location along the vessel 690 through which the device 102 traveled, an IVUS image may be generated and associated with that location along the vessel 690 as will be described with reference to FIG. 8. Thus the location of a second cross-sectional ultrasound image from within the artery corresponds with a location of a second indicia (e.g. any indicia such as an image or other data at a location) positioned along the longitudinal ultrasound image)
Cohen fails to explicitly teach the guidewire having a group of pressure sensors.
Sonck, in a similar field of endeavor involving vascular devices, teaches a guidewire having a group of pressure sensors associated with a distal end of the guidewire ([0149] which discloses the pressure wire (i.e. guidewire [0144] or [0148]) can comprise multiple pressure sensors, the multiple pressure sensors are provided at different positions along the length of the pressure wire. Examiner notes that such a group of pressure sensors are thus associated with a distal end of the guidewire in its broadest reasonable interpretation in that they are positioned along a length of the wire which has a distal end) and
a pressure map of pressure measurements (see at least fig. 5 depicting the FFR over the length.. i.e. a map) received from the group of pressure sensors ([0050]-[0052] which discloses according to an embodiment, there is provided a method, wherein said set of multiple of relative pressure values were obtained: by means of a manual or motorized pullback of a pressure wire comprising at least one pressure sensor; by means of a pressure wire comprising a multiple of built-in pressure sensors and [0146] which discloses [0146] In yet another particular embodiment there is no need for a motorized pullback device but instead the FFR curve is obtained by a pressure wire comprise a multiple of built-in pressure sensor)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Cohen to include a group of pressure sensors on the guide-wire as taught by Sonck in order to allow for pressure measurements/pressure maps to be obtained without requiring a pull-back method ([0148]). Furthermore, such a modification would allow for pressure measurements to be obtained at different positions even when stationary ([0149]).
Regarding claim 17,
Cohen, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 8 as previously stated. Sonck, as applied to claim 8 above, further teaches wherein the group of pressure sensors is configured to detect a physiological parameter at at least two different locations within the artery ([0149] which discloses the multiple pressure sensors are provided at different positions along the length of the pressure wire. Thus examiner notes that the group of pressure sensors are configured to detect a physiological parameter (i.e. pressure) at a same time (i.e. when stationary and not during a pull-back procedures), thus are configured to detect a pressure at the two different locations during a single heartbeat of a patient (i.e. simultaneously, thus during any single heartbeat)).
Regarding claim 18,
Cohen, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 17 as previously stated. Sonck, as applied to claim 17 above, further teaches further comprising a proximal pressure sensor ([0149] which discloses the pressure wire can comprise multiple pressure sensors (e.g. at least 10, at least 20, etc.) and the multiple pressure sensors are provided at different positions along the length of the pressure wire. Examiner notes that the group of pressure sensors may thus be considered the most distal pressure sensors and any additional pressure sensor (e.g. a 10th pressure sensor located proximally of the nine most distal (i.e. the group of pressure sensors) is the additional pressure sensor).
Regarding claim 19,
Cohen, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 18 as previously stated. Sonck, as applied to claim 17 above, further teaches wherein the additional pressure sensor is configured to detect a pressure within the artery during the same single heartbeat as the first group of sensors ([0149] which discloses the multiple pressure sensors are provided at different positions along the length of the pressure wire. Thus examiner notes that the group of pressure sensors are configured to detect a physiological parameter (i.e. pressure) at a same time (i.e. when stationary and not during a pull-back procedures), thus are configured to detect a pressure at the two different locations during a single heartbeat of a patient (i.e. simultaneously, thus during any single heartbeat)).
Regarding claim 20,
Cohen, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 19 as previously stated. Sonck, as applied to claim 17 above, further teaches wherein the additional pressure sensor is associated with the guidewire and located proximally of the group of pressure sensors (([0149] which discloses the pressure wire can comprise multiple pressure sensors (e.g. at least 10, at least 20, etc.) and the multiple pressure sensors are provided at different positions along the length of the pressure wire. Examiner notes that the group of pressure sensors may thus be considered the most distal pressure sensors and any proximal pressure sensor (e.g. a 10th pressure sensor located proximally of the nine most distal (i.e. the group of pressure sensors) is the proximal pressure sensor).
Regarding claim 21,
Cohen, as modified teaches the elements of claim 21 as previously stated. Sonck, as applied to claim 17 above, further teaches wherein the pressure map is defined based on a relationship of data from each individual pressure sensor the pressure sensors as compared to data of the additional pressure sensor (see at least fig. 5 depicting the FFR over the length.. i.e. a map [0050]-[0052] which discloses according to an embodiment, there is provided a method, wherein said set of multiple of relative pressure values were obtained: by means of a manual or motorized pullback of a pressure wire comprising at least one pressure sensor; by means of a pressure wire comprising a multiple of built-in pressure sensors and [0146] which discloses in yet another particular embodiment there is no need for a motorized pullback device but instead the FFR curve is obtained by a pressure wire comprise a multiple of built-in pressure sensor. Examiner notes that the limitation “based on” is broad and that the pressure map of fig. 5 is generated based on data from each of the sensors and thus is based on any relationship of the data compared to data of the additional pressure sensor in its broadest reasonable interpretation)
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen and Sonck, as applied to claim 10 above, or alternatively Cohen and Sonck, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Cai et al. (US 20230157672 A1), hereinafter Cai.
Regarding claim 11,
Cohen, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 10 as previously stated. Cohen further teaches wherein the first cross-sectional ultrasound image is of an area of the artery including a lesion ([0058] which discloses The processor 134 outputs image data such that an image of the lumen 120, such as a cross-sectional image of the vessel 120, is displayed on the display 132. Examiner notes that the nature of the area of the artery including a lesion is considered an intended use of the system. A limitation directed towards intended use must result in a structural difference between the prior art and the claimed invention, where the prior art system must merely be capable of displaying a cross-sectional ultrasound image of an area of the artery including a lesion. Thus it is noted that the Cohen teaches acquiring/displaying cross-sectional images of an artery, thus the display is configured to display images of an area of the artery and is capable of displaying such a first cross-sectional image in an instance where the artery comprises a lesion, such a cross-sectional image of the vessel (e.g. during a pull-back procedure) would be of an area including a lesion)
Alternatively, since Cohen does not explicitly teach imaging a vessel including a lesion, Cai, in a similar field of endeavor involving intravascular ultrasound, teaches a first cross-sectional image is of an area of a vessel including a lesion ([0122] which discloses fig. 5 is a flow chart depicting an example process by which an image (i.e. cross sectional images may be processed/segmented and may undergo image classification to identify a lesion).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Cohen, as currently modified, to include a first cross-sectional image of an area of a vessel including a lesion, in order to allow for identification of lesions in the blood vessel during the pull-back imaging procedure and further allow for scoring of the lesion to therefore allow for a treatment strategy to be determined accordingly ([0127]-[0128])
Regarding claim 12,
Cohen, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 11 as previously stated. Cohen further teaches wherein the second cross-sectional ultrasound image is a reference image ([0087] which discloses For each location along the vessel 690 through which the device 102 traveled, an IVUS image may be generated and associated with that location along the vessel 690 as will be described with reference to FIG. 8. Examiner notes that any of the cross-sectional ultrasound images are considered a reference image in its broadest reasonable interpretation) for comparison with the first cross-sectional image (Examiner notes that the limitation is considered an intended use. A limitation directed towards intended use must result in a structural difference between the prior art and the claimed invention, where the prior art must merely teach a reference image which is capable of being used for comparison with the first cross-sectional image. Examiner thus notes that any of the images acquired during the pull-back procedure including the first cross-sectional image and the second cross-sectional image would be capable of being used for comparison with each other, thus Cohen teaches the second cross-sectional ultrasound image as recited).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen and Sonck as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Gopinath et al. (US 20200295659 A1), hereinafter Gopinath.
Regarding claim 13,
Cohen, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 8 as previously stated. Cohen fails to explicitly teach annotations overlaid on the angiogram image, the annotations including indications of suggested landing zones for a stent.
Gopinath, in a similar field of endeavor involving vascular imaging, teaches annotations overlaid on an angiogram image, the annotations including indications of suggested landing zones for a stent (see fig. 3C (LZ on the angiogram image) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0126] and [0096] which discloses when selecting landing zones to deploy a particular stent)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Cohen, as currently modified, to include landing zones as taught by Gopinath in order to help inform stent selection and co-registration and help landing zones be evaluated and changed (Gopinath [0126]). Such a modification would thus enhance the procedure of Cohen by providing a stent recommendation on not only the longitudinal image (see fig. 10 (1010)), but also on the angiogram image. Thus providing more information to a user to readily see the recommended stent position aligned with multiple images.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen and Sonck as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Tominaga et al. (US 20240013385 A1), hereinafter Tominaga.
Regarding claim 14,
Cohen, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 8 as previously stated. Cohen further teaches further including additional indicia (at least fig. 10 (1010) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0126]) representing a suggested stent length ([0126] which discloses a depiction of a stent 11010. Can be overlaid on the ILD and stent placement recommendation may include a length of stent) positioned in alignment with the longitudinal ultrasound image (see at least fig. 10)
It is unclear if the indicia representing a suggested stent length is in alignment with an indication of a lesion on the longitudinal ultrasound image.
Nonetheless, Tominaga, in a similar field of endeavor involving vascular devices, teaches indicia representing a suggested stent length (see at least fig. 13 dotted lines and corresponding disclosure in at least [0077]) is in alignment with an indication of a lesion (at least fig. 13 (MLA) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0077]) on a longitudinal ultrasound image (see at leas t fig. 13 depicting a longitudinal ultrasound image and [0077] which discloses the various calculated values (i.e. stent size , the plaque burden, the average lumen diameter, etc. may be displayed in a superimposed manner or in an annotation manner on the IVUS image in the longitudinal tomographic view and transverse tomographic view, for example).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Cohen, as currently modified, to include the suggested stent length in alignment with an indication of a lesion as taught by Tominaga in order to assist the operator in performing the stent implant by allowing for a positional relationship between a lesion and the stent for covering the lesion to be observed in the longitudinal image accordingly (Tominaga [0076]-[0077]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen and Sonck as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Parks et al. (US 2005014884 A1), hereinafter Parks.
Regarding claim 15,
Cohen, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 8 as previously stated. Sonck, as applied to claim 8 above, further teaches wherein the group of pressure sensors includes at least two sensors spaced apart ([0149] which discloses in a particular embodiment the pressure wire can comprise multiple pressure sensors, e.g. at least 10, at least 20, at least 30, at least 40, at least 50, or more pressure sensors. It is clear that according to such embodiments of the pressure wire, the multiple pressure sensors are provided at different positions along the length of the pressure wire)
It is unclear if the at least two sensors are spaced apart between approximately .5 cm and approximately 2.0 cm using a center-to-center spacing.
Parks, in a similar field of endeavor involving, vascular pressure sensing, teaches wherein pressure sensors (at least fig. 1 (112) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0065]) are spaced 1.0 cm apart between approximately .5 cm and approximately 2.0 cm using a center-to-center spacing (see [0089] which discloses separating sensor by 1.2 centimeters or less and having 32 sensors may be more preferred. IN one embodiment a spacing of one centimeter and the use of 36 circumferential sensors is used. See also at least claim 11 which recites including pressure sensors spaced at 1 cm center to center. And claim 27 reciting said pressure sensors are spaced at one centimeter intervals)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Cohen, as currently modified, to include spacing the pressure sensors apart between approximately .5 cm and approximately 2.0 cm using a center-to-center spacing as taught by Parks in order to yield a high spatial resolution of the pressure mapping, which allows for detailed pressure profile mapping of the entire region of interest of most patients (Parks [0089]).
Regarding claim 16,
Cohen, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 8 as previously stated. Sonck, as applied to claim 8 above, further teaches wherein the group of sensors includes eleven sensors spaced from each other ([0149] which discloses in a particular embodiment the pressure wire can comprise multiple pressure sensors, e.g. at least 10, at least 20, at least 30, at least 40, at least 50, or more pressure sensors. It is clear that according to such embodiments of the pressure wire, the multiple pressure sensors are provided at different positions along the length of the pressure wire)
It is unclear if the pressure sensors are spaced approximately 1.0 cm apart from each other using a center to center spacing.
Parks, in a similar field of endeavor involving, vascular pressure sensing, teaches wherein pressure sensors (at least fig. 1 (112) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0065]) are spaced approximately 1.0 cm apart from each other using a center-to-center spacing (see [0089] which discloses separating sensor by 1.2 centimeters or less and having 32 sensors may be more preferred. IN one embodiment a spacing of one centimeter and the use of 36 circumferential sensors is used. See also at least claim 11 which recites including pressure sensors spaced at 1 cm center to center. And claim 27 reciting said pressure sensors are spaced at one centimeter intervals)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Cohen, as currently modified, to include spacing the pressure sensors approximately 1.0 cm apart from each other using a center-to-center spacing as taught by Parks in order to yield a high spatial resolution of the pressure mapping, which allows for detailed pressure profile mapping of the entire region of interest of most patients (Parks [0089]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen and Sonck as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20120215091 A1), hereinafter Suzuki.
Regarding claim 22,
Cohen, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 8 as previously stated. Cohen, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the location of a first indicia positioned along the longitudinal ultrasound image of the artery is selectively positionable via an input unit
Suzuki, in a similar field of endeavor involving ultrasound imaging of vessels, teaches wherein a location of a first indicia (at least figs. 9/12 (903) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0138]) positioned along a longitudinal ultrasound image (at least figs. 9/12 (902) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0138]) of a vessel is selectively positionable via an input unit ([0138] which discloses moving indicator 903 in the axial direction through the instruction input unit 334. See also [0161] which discloses it is possible to employ a construction in which two indicators 903, or two or more indicators 903 are displayed. Also, in a case in which two indicators 903 are displayed, it is also possible to employ an arrangement in which two cross-sectional images corresponding to the positions of two points appointed by the indicator 903 respectively are displayed and concurrently, the distance between the two points is calculated and displayed)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Cohen, as currently modified, to include a location of a first indicia being selectively positionable as taught by Suzuki in order to make it possible for a user to visually confirm a cross-sectional image by correlation with a position which is appointed/selected by a user in the axial direction of the blood vessel in the imaging apparatus for diagnosis (Suzuki [0140]). Such a modification would further enhance a user’s ability to redisplay images at desired positions along the longitudinal axis.
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 BROOKE L KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-4.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached on 5712700552. 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.
/BROOKE LYN KLEIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797