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
The drawings submitted on 11/14/2025 are accepted.
The 35 USC 112(b) and 103 rejections are withdrawn in lieu of the amendment on 11/14/2025
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 in regards to the 35USC101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the static physical and dynamic physical parameters are necessary and not done by the human mind or mental activity. The Examiner notes that gathering the data for those parameters is insignificant extra solution activity gathered by known sensors. Secondly, the Applicant argues that the model requires not a simple mathematical operation but the analysis of clinical practice processes as well as the modeling, derivation, and computation of physics. The Examiner agrees, that is why the claims have been categorized as both a mental process and mathematical concepts in the 101 rejection. Thirdly, the Applicant argues that the gathering of the data and determinations of the algorithms have led to a technical improvement. The Examiner notes that the improvement cannot lie solely within the judicial exception and also is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. It is noted that there is no requirement for only a medical image and pressure without the use of guidewires.
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 1-9 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
(Step 1)
The claim(s) recites a series of acts of steps for obtaining the index of microvascular resistance which is a statutory category (method) of invention. Additionally, claims are also drawn to a computer (apparatus) for running a program.
(Step 2A, Prong 1)
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether they are directed to any judicial exception. Claim 1 recites at least one step or instruction for obtaining and calculating which are grouped as a mental process and/or mathematical concept under the 2019 PEG.
Specifically, claim 1 recites {Bold additional elements, underlined abstract ideas}
The method for obtaining the Index of Microvascular Resistance comprises:
obtaining the resting pressure of coronary artery ostium, calculating cardiac output pressure according to the obtained resting pressure of coronary artery ostium;
obtaining the hyperemic pressure of the coronary artery ostium,
obtaining the coronary flow reserve based on the cardiac output pressure, the resting pressure of coronary artery ostium, and the hyperemic pressure of the coronary artery ostium; comprises: build a hemodynamic model…resting state;
obtaining the medical images of the coronary system, extracting the vessel boundary from the images to obtain a target vessel 3D model, and calculating the morphological parameters of the coronary artery according to the 3D model of the target vessel; calculating the resting blood flow based on the morphological parameters;
calculating the flow resistance based on the morphological parameters and the resting blood flow;
calculating the average blood flow of the epicardial vessels in hyperemia based on the Coronary flow reserve and the resting blood flow, calculating the Fractional flow reserve and the pressure at the distal of the target vessel in hyperemia based on the morphological parameters, the average blood flow in hyperemia, and the hyperemic pressure of the coronary artery ostium; and
calculating the Index of Microvascular Resistance based on the morphological parameters, the average blood flow in hyperemia, and the pressure at the distal of the target vessel.
The underlined limitations represent either mental processes (observation, judgement, or evaluations) or mathematical concepts (equations).
Further, claims 2-7, and 17-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2A, Prong 2)
The above identified abstract ideas in each of claims 1-20 are not integrated into practical application under the 2019 PEG because the additional elements either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above identified abstract ideas into a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically the additional elements of:
Processor
Memory
Computer Storage Medium
The additional elements recited are generic hardware components of a generic computer. As such, these additional limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the “obtaining…” limitations are extra-solution activity as well as dependent claims 2-7 and 17-20.
Claims 1-9 and 17-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
The claims require the additional elements of Processor, Memory, and Computer Storage Medium.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks and/or mathematical concepts. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
Per Applicant’s disclosure, the processor, memory, and computer storage medium are described generically (fig. 8, page 17), and is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
For at least the above reasons, the method of Claims 1-20 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1-20 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 9(and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements 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. Thus, Claims 1-9 and 17-20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-9, and 17-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-9, and 17-20 are not patent eligible and rejected 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 ALEX M VALVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4233. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
ALEX M. VALVIS
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791