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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed on December 10, 2025 is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1 and 3-11 are amended. Claims 2 and 12 is canceled. Claims 1 and 3-11 are examined in this Office action.
Response to Amendment
The rejection to claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is now withdrawn in view of the claim amendment.
In view of the claim amendment, claims 1 and 11 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), written description support and 112(b).
The rejection to claims 1-5, 7 and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is now withdrawn in view of the claim amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. Claims 1 and 11 recite processing circuitry configured to estimate a phase shift, which is a computer-implemented functional claim limitations as it is directed to a processing circuitry. In claims 1 and 11, the specification discloses estimating a phase shift between the pulse wave information and the EKG waveform of the patient (Step 404). Yet the specification does not have any further disclosure in regard to the estimation of any other type of phase shifts. The specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed functions in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. It is not enough to disclose that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve an estimation of any type of phase shifts because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 line 6 and claim 11 line 5 recite “estimate a phase shift”. It is unclear what the time shift refers to. In the specification, the time shift is disclosed in Step 404 to be referring to a phase shift between the pulse wave information and the EKG waveform. Applicant is reminded though that the claims only recite obtaining scan data and pulse wave information yet they do not recite EKG waveform being acquired or obtained. The same rejection applies to claim 11 for the substantially identical limitations recited in the claim.
Claim 1 recites in line 4 “pulse wave information”, in line 7 “the obtained pulse wave information” and in line 9 “the pulse wave information”. It is unclear whether “the obtained pulse wave information” and “the pulse wave information” refer to the same, and both refer to the “pulse wave information” of line 4. Consistent claim language is required if they refer to the same. The same rejection applies to claim 11 for the substantially identical limitations recited in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the scan data corresponding to an interval among the plurality of intervals”; and Claim 6 recites “the scan data corresponding to the first interval” and “the scan data corresponding to the second interval”. These terms lack proper antecedent basis. Note that in claim 1, the “scan data” recited in line 3 refers to the scan data of an subject. There is no recitation for the scan data to be corresponding to any particular interval.
Claim 6 recites generating a first/second image corresponding to a first/second interval, generate a time-volume curve based on the first/second image, and estimate the phase shift based on the time-volume curve. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 recites that the first/second interval is among the plurality of intervals divided from an interval between two peaks of a pulse wave that has been phase-corrected based on the estimated phase shift. Therefore, it is unclear how the phase shift may be estimated (the end result of claim 6) when it has been used to correct the pulse wave that comprises the intervals as recited in claim 1. The above limitations in claims 1 and 6 are convoluting that renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 11 are not rejected under prior art. They would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), written description support and 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3-5 and 7 are not rejected under prior arts by virtual of their dependency to claim 1.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8 and 10 are allowed.
Claim 9 is allowed by virtual of its dependency to claim 8.
The limitations recited in claims 1 and 11 in regard to the features of “estimate a phase shift; correct a phase of the obtained pulse wave information based on the estimated phase shift; divide an interval between two pulse wave peaks adjacent to each other in the pulse wave information whose phase has been corrected based on the estimated phase shift, into a plurality of intervals, and generate an image corresponding to an interval among the plurality of intervals based on the scan data corresponding to the interval among the plurality of intervals", in combination with the other claimed elements, are not taught or disclosed in the prior arts.
The limitations recited in claim 6 in regard to the features of “generate a first image corresponding to a first interval among the plurality of intervals based on the scan data corresponding to the first interval and generate a second image corresponding to a second interval among the plurality of intervals based on the scan data corresponding to the second interval; generate a time-volume curve related to a heart of the examined subject based on the first image and the second image; and estimate the phase shift based on the time-volume curve", in combination with the other claimed elements, are not taught or disclosed in the prior arts.
The limitations recited in claims 8 and 10 in regard to the features of “divide an interval between two pulse wave peaks adjacent to each other in the pulse wave information, into a plurality of phases; shift an initial phase corresponding to one of the peaks among the plurality of phases, multiple times toward past at predetermined time intervals; and generate a plurality of reconstruction images corresponding to how many times the shift was made, on a basis of the scan data included in two or more of the initial phases that were shifted", in combination with the other claimed elements, are not taught or disclosed in the prior arts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in regard to the rejections presented in the non-final Office action have been fully considered and they are persuasive. In view of the clam amendment, the previously issued rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 103 are all withdrawn.
The amendment to claims 1, 6 and 11 have raised new grounds of rejection. Specifically, claims 1 and 2 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), written description support and 112(b), and claim 6 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Please refer to the rejection sections for details.
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 YI-SHAN YANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm PST.
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, Pascal M Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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.
/YI-SHAN YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798