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 Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 10/01/2025 has been entered. Accordingly, claims 1-3 and 5-15 remain pending, claims 1, 3, and 5-15 have been amended, claims 2, 5, and 1-13 having been previously withdrawn, and claim 4 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Priority
It is noted that applicant has not responded nor remedied the outstanding issues noted in the previous office action mailed 07/01/2025 regarding priority of this application. Therefore, these issues remain outstanding.
Claim Objections
Light of applicant’s amendments filed 10/01/2025 amending claims 1, 14-15, and cancelling claim 4, the previous objections to claims 1, 4, 14, and 15 have been rendered moot and are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
Applicant's arguments filed 10/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the specific rejections of claims 4 and 6, the amendments filed 10/01/2025 cancelling claim 4 and amend amending claim 6, have rendered these specific rejections moot and they has been withdrawn.
However, with regard to the remaining rejections under this statute, the newly filed claim amendments do not remedy the outstanding issues to the claims and add further clarity issues to the claims and have introduced new clarity issues to other claims. Please see the updated rejections below.
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments filed 10/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the second paragraph of page 12 through the first paragraph of page 13
“In particular, as set forth in paragraph 52, the '573 application discloses that ‘[f]or example, the acquisition circuitry 161 according to the present embodiment acquires the cross-section position information in volume data, which is three-dimensional medical image data, by acquiring a correspondence relation that specifies the position of a cross-section corresponding to a scan cross-section of the ultrasonic probe 1.’ Emphasis added.
Thus, the ‘573 application discloses the use of a scan cross-section (rather than three- dimensional ultrasonic image data) for acquiring a correspondence relationship.
Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the ‘573 application fails to disclose processing circuitry configured to acquire a correspondence relation between a position in the three-dimensional ultrasonic image data and a position in volume data of the subject captured by a different medical-image diagnostic device that is different from the ultrasonic diagnostic device, as recited in amended Claim 1.
Rather, as noted above, the ‘573 application merely discloses the use of a scan cross-section instead of three-dimensional ultrasonic image data for acquiring a correspondence relation.
Further, Applicant respectfully submits that the ‘573 application fails to disclose processing circuitry configured to cause a second angle marker indicating a second angle corresponding to the first angle to be displayed at a second position on a second display image corresponding to the first position, in accordance with the correspondence relation; and adjust the first angle of the first angle marker in conjunction with the second angle of the second angle marker, in response to an operation of an operator, as recited in amended Claim 1”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further, in response, regarding the limitation: cause the first display image and the second display image to be simultaneously displayed on a pre-configured display, applicant is directed to [0053], [0055], [0058] of primary reference Tanaka, which discloses the simultaneous display function is performed which simultaneously displays, on a screen of the display, in real time: the ultrasonic image data of a scan cross-section subject to change following a move of the ultrasonic probe and two-dimensional X-ray CT image data of X-ray CT volume data, with having its positions matched with respective corresponding positions of the two-dimensional ultrasonic image data. And in regard to the limitation cause a second angle marker indicating a second angle corresponding to the first angle to be displayed at a second position on a second display second image, applicant is directed to [0052]-[0053], [0056], [0058]-[0059], [0070]-[0071], [0078], [0107]-[0108], FIGS. 4-5 of primary reference Tanaka which discloses the feature portion in the MPR image data a and the feature portion in the ultrasonic image data being displayed on the display screen are specified by an operator via an input device such as a mouse so that the operator causes the direction of the angle marker in the volume data to be displayed, using the correspondence relation which specifies the position of a cross-section corresponding in accordance with/to a scan cross-section of the ultrasonic probe/ultrasonic image data, the second position information in the volume data that corresponds to both of the collection cross-section in the first display image and the collection range/first angle marker, the two-dimensional image data/second display image of X-ray CT volume data includes positions/second position marker is displayed that is matched with respective corresponding positions/the position of the first position marker of the two-dimensional ultrasonic image data.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art combined does not teach the newly recited limitation: adjust the first angle of the first angle marker in conjunction with the second angle of the second angle marker in response to an operation of an operator, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See the 112 rejection and as discussed in the 103 rejections below.
Applicant argues in the third paragraph of page 14
“Thus, no matter how the teachings of the '573 and '581 applications are combined, the combination does not teach or suggest the functionality of the processing circuitry recited in amended Claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of Claim 1 is rendered moot by the present amendment to that claim”.
It is noted that the arguments presented are unsupported by objective evidence. Applicant is reminded that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Applicant’s remarks on pages 12-14 characterize the field of endeavor more narrowly than is appropriate. As noted in In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009), “This court cannot, in the face of KSR, cling to formalistic rules for obviousness, customize its legal tests in specific scientific fields in a way that deem entire classes of prior art teachings irrelevant, or discount significant abilities of artisans of ordinary skill in an advanced area of art”.
Accordingly, the claims remain rejection and the rejection has been made final.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent 15/864,060, filed on 01/08/2018.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for Application No. JP2017-251159, filed on 12/27/2017 and Application No. JP2017-002058, filed on 01/10/2017.
However, it is noted that no certified English language translation of either parent Application No. JP2017-251159 nor parent Application No. JP2017-002058 has been provide to the file wrapper for parent application 15/864,060 nor the present application under examination.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
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 1, 3, 6, and 14-15 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 1 has been amended to recite “cause a second angle marker indicating a second angle corresponding to the first angle to be displayed on a second display image, in accordance with a position and an angle of the first angle marker on the scan area of the ultrasonic image data in the first display image and the correspondence relation” and “adjust the first angle of the first angle marker in conjunction with the second angle of the second angle marker in response to an operation of an operator” in lines 14-21, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear to what position the second position which corresponds to the first position on a second display image which the second angle marker is caused to be displayed is meant to refer, and if it is meant to refer to the earlier recited position in volume data on the subject captured by a different medical-image diagnostic device, or if applicant meant to refer to a different position other than the position in volume data on the subject captured by a different medical-image diagnostic device used in determining the correspondence relation. Similarly, it is unclear if the position and an angle of the first angle marker which the second angle marker is caused to be displayed is meant to refer to the position in ultrasonic image data on the three-dimensional area based on the reflected wave used in determining the correspondence relation recited earlier in the claim, or if applicant meant to refer to a different position other than the position in ultrasonic image data on the three-dimensional area based on the reflected wave used in determining the correspondence relation.
It is also unclear if the “second display image” is displayed on the same physical display monitor and at the same time that the first display image is being displayed. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term and limitations related thereto and reciting the term “second display image” have been interpreted to not be limited to one of the above alternates outlined above and may be interpreted to being displayed on multiple (separate/different) display devices and/or different/separate times than the display monitor displaying the first display image and at the time when the first display image is being displayed.
Further, it is unclear how the first angle of the first angle marker is adjusted in conjunction with the second angle of the second angle in response to an operation. Namely, it is unclear what structure receives some sort of input signifying the “operation” as a to output serving the functional “response”. It is unclear if the “operator” is a functional element of the claim or if applicant meant the operator to be a human user of the ultrasonic diagnostic device and if the operator is a human user, if the operator is required by the claim. If so, then the claim would not be patent-eligible under 35 USC 101. Applicant is advised to amendment the claim to remove any subject matter not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Additionally, it is unclear if the “adjust…” limitation is required by the claim. There is no corresponding step presently recited in the claim which actively recites an operation being performed by an operator nor is there an active step reciting the reception of the operation performed by the operator. Therefore, the limitation(s) have been interpreted as intended use.
Additionally, it is unclear what functional limitation applicant meant to impart on the claim by reciting “for conducting angle correction in blood-flow information”, as it is unclear if a step of actively performing angle correction is being performed. It is unclear to what structural and/or functional meaning the term “blood-flow information” is meant to be interpreted as in the claim. For example, it is unclear if blood-flow information is meant to refer to a blood-flow image, a measurement of blood flow such as a velocity measurement, etc., and/or a live color Doppler image or live power Doppler spectrogram being concurrently displayed.
Claims 14 and 15 are also rejected for reciting the same and/or limitations outlined above.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
Claim 3 has been amended to recite “cause a second position marker to be displayed at a fourth position on the second display image corresponding to a third position of the first position marker, in accordance with the third position and the correspondence relation” in lines 6-9, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the claim requires the display of the second position marker at the fourth position, as there is no corresponding limitation recited in the claim which positively recites an active limitation for displaying of the second position marker at the fourth position. Therefore, the limitation has been interpreted as a preference and not a requirement and has been interpreted as intended use.
Applicant may overcome the rejection by positively reciting an active step for performing the display[ing] of the second position marker at the fourth position.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US20160095573, hereafter “Tanaka”), in view of Yoneyama et al. (US20160095581, hereafter “Yoneyama”).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 15, Tanaka discloses an ultrasonic diagnostic device (10 in FIG. 1), an image processing device for ultrasonic imaging ([0079]-[0100], 14 and/or 16 in FIG. 1), and an image processing method for ultrasonic imaging (FIG. 19), comprising:
processing circuitry (see 161-164 in 16 and/or 14 in FIG. 1) configured to
generate, based on the reflected wave, three-dimensional ultrasonic image data corresponding to the three-dimensional area ([0023], [0037] the piezoelectric transducer of the ultrasound probe three-dimensionally scans the subject P by swinging the piezoelectric transducer elements at a given angle swing angle the three-dimensional region inside the subject P, then generates three-dimensional reflected wave data from three-dimensional reflected wave signals which are received by the ultrasonic probe 1);
generate a first display image from the three-dimensional ultrasonic image ([0023], [0029], [0037] the three-dimensional reflected wave data is generated from three-dimensional reflected wave signals which are received by the ultrasonic probe which is displayed by the display 2 displays ultrasonic first display image that has been generated from the three-dimensional image data);
acquire a correspondence relation between a position in the three-dimensional ultrasonic image data a position in volume data on the subject captured by a different medical-image diagnostic device that is different from the ultrasonic diagnostic device ([0052], [0077]-[0078] a correspondence relation that specifies the position of a cross-section corresponding to a scan cross-section of the ultrasonic probe is acquired in order to acquire the cross-section position information in volume data, which is three-dimensional medical image data, the volume data is photographed by a medical diagnostic imaging apparatus different than the ultrasonic diagnostic probe, such as the X-ray CT volume, before the following processing steps are started);
generate, based on the correspondence relation, a second display image corresponding to the first display image, from the volume data ([0031], [0049], [0077]-[0078] the correspondence relation specifies the position of a cross-section in volume data corresponding to a scan cross-section of the ultrasonic probe which is acquired in order to acquire the cross-section position information in volume data, i.e., the three-dimensional medical image data, and the volume data is obtained by a medical diagnostic imaging apparatus different than the ultrasonic diagnostic probe, such as the X-ray CT volume);
cause the first display image and the second display image to be simultaneously displayed on a pre-configured display ([0053], [0055], [0058] the simultaneous display function is performed which simultaneously displays, on a screen of the display 2 in real time: ultrasonic image data of a scan cross-section subject to change following a move of the ultrasonic probe 1; and two-dimensional X-ray CT image data of X-ray CT volume data, with having its positions matched with respective corresponding positions of the two-dimensional ultrasonic image data);
cause a first angle marker indicating a pre-configured first position and a pre- configured first angle ([0066], [0069], [0070]-[0071], [00701], [0075], FIGS. 4-5, the ultrasonic data includes Doppler waveforms indicating blood flow velocity information along a scan line which is the position of a displayed sampling marker and arranges/sets the first angle marker parallel to the running direction of the blood vessel, the Doppler processing circuitry makes angle correction using “1/cos θ” to the blood flow velocity information obtained at the position of the first angle marker at the position of a scan line is arranged so that passes through the sampling gate and that allows scanning inside the collection cross-section for adjusting the contact position and the contact angle of the ultrasonic probe 1 to the optimum position and angle) to be displayed on the first display image ([0056], [0070]-[0071], [0070], [0075], [0107]-[0108], FIGS. 4-5, the operator may move the ultrasonic probe 1 by setting an observation area in from a cross-section that is optimal for Doppler waveform collection, containing a color ROI from which blood flow information is highly accurately calculated);
cause a second angle marker indicating a second angle corresponding to the first angle to be displayed at a second position on a second display second image ([0056], [0070]-[0071], [0078], [0107]-[0108], FIGS. 4-5, the feature portion in the MPR image data 101 a and the feature portion in the ultrasonic image data 200 being displayed on the display screen are specified by an operator via an input device such as a mouse so that the operator causes the direction of the angle marker in the volume data to be displayed) corresponding to the first position ([0052]-[0053], [0055], [0058]-[0059], [0071], [0078], the cross-section position second information in volume data is obtained, which is three-dimensional medical image data/second display image to be used for the function of simultaneously displaying on a screen of the display 2 in real time), in accordance with the correspondence relation ([0052]-[0053], [0055], [0058]-[0059], [0071], [0078], the correspondence relation specifies the position of a cross-section corresponding in accordance with/to a scan cross-section of the ultrasonic probe 1/ultrasonic image data, the second position information in the volume data that corresponds to both of the collection cross-section in the first display image and the collection range/first angle marker, the two-dimensional image data/second display image of X-ray CT volume data includes positions/second position marker is displayed that is matched with respective corresponding positions/the position of the first position marker of the two-dimensional ultrasonic image data); and
adjust the first angle of the first angle marker ([0071], FIG. 4, the operator adjusts the direction of the angle marker) and adjust the second angle of the second angle marker in response to an operation of an operator ([0055], [0071], [0099]-[0100], FIGS. 2, 12-14, he three axes (X,Y,Z) of the ultrasonic probe 1 are aligned with the three axes of X-ray CT volume data in order to execute a simultaneous display function, so that when the first position marker is changed, the second position marker is also changed at the same time/ the first and second markers may be moved in tandem with one another).
And with specific regard to claim 1, Tanaka also discloses that the disclosed ultrasonic diagnostic device additionally comprises:
an ultrasonic probe configured to conduct ultrasonic scanning on a three-dimensional area of a subject and receive a reflected wave corresponding to the three-dimensional area from the subject (see 1 in FIG. 1).
The adjustment of the first angle of the first angle marker and the adjustment of the second angle of the second angle marker in the second display image as disclosed by Tanaka is not explicitly disclosed as being in conjunction with the second angle of the second angle marker.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yoneyama teaches adjust, based on the operation, the first angle of the first angle marker in conjunction with the second angle of the second angle marker ([0040] ultrasonic/first display image and the reference/MPR/second display image are on the same screen and the CPU performs angle alignment that aligns a scanning direction of the ultrasonic probe 11 with a direction corresponding an orientation of the cross section of the reference/MPR/second display image and mark alignment that aligns points set on first and second angle markers observable in both the reference/MPR/second display image and ultrasonic/first display image with each other).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasonic diagnostic, the image processing device for ultrasonic imaging, and the image processing method for ultrasonic imaging disclosed by Tanaka with the adjusting, based on the operation, the first angle of the first angle marker be made in conjunction with the second angle of the second angle marker as taught by Yoneyama in order to associate the direction and coordinates of the ultrasonic probe with coordinates of the volume data to generate a two-dimensional image of substantially the same position as the current scanning surface of the ultrasonic probe from the volume data obtained by another modality, thereby allowing an MPR image of the same cross section as that of the ultrasonic image changing with moving of the ultrasonic probe to be displayed ([0040] of Yoneyama).
It should be noted, with specific regard to claims 1 and 14, that the limitations of “adjust the first angle of the first angle marker in conjunction with the second angle of the second angle marker in response to…” and “an operation of an operator” are considered functional limitations of the device; the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus/device claim from the prior art; See "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore, the device of Tanaka as modified, would be capable of performing all the functions as recited.
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Tanaka discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured (see [0020]-[0030], FIGS. 1-2) to:
cause a first position marker, which indicates a position at which blood-flow information is extracted on a scan area of the three-dimensional ultrasonic image data ([0069]-[0070] the sampling marker is positioned so to be indicating all of blood flow velocity information extracted along a scan line set at the same position as the sampling marker), to be displayed on the first display image ([0069]-[0070] the sampling marker is arranged on the first display image pass through a blood vessel containing an observation area visualized in two-dimensional ultrasonic image data [first display image]); and
cause a second position marker to be displayed at a fourth position on the second display image corresponding to a third position of the first position marker, in accordance with the third position and the correspondence relation ([0057]-[0059], [0070], FIG, 4, a correspondence relation is determined which is used specify a cross-section in the X-ray CT volume data 100 that corresponds to a scan cross-section, in response, a sampling marker and an angle marker are arranged, which correspond to a line marker in the PW mode, see dotted line in FIG. 4).
It should be noted, that the limitations of “cause a second position marker to be displayed at a fourth position on the second display image corresponding to a third position of the first position marker, in accordance with the third position and the correspondence relation” is considered a functional limitation of the device; the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus/device claim from the prior art; See "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore, the device of Tanaka as modified, would be capable of performing all the functions as recited.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka, in view of Yoneyama, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Grady et al. (US20160306944, hereafter “Grady”).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Tanaka discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
collect blood-flow information on the subject at the first position of the first angle marker ([0069]-[0070] the sampling marker is positioned so to be indicating all of blood flow velocity information extracted along a scan line set at the same position as the sampling marker, so that the sampling marker is arranged on the first display image pass through a blood vessel containing an observation area visualized in two-dimensional ultrasonic image data [first display image]);
correct the blood-flow information using the first angle of the first angle marker ([0070] operator or the control circuitry 18 then arranges a line marker at the position of a scan line that passes through the sampling gate to obtain the blood flow velocity information, so that the blood flow velocity information which is obtained from Doppler information is blood flow velocity information in a direction of the scan line on the line marker denoted as “θ”, Doppler process circuitry 13 then performs angle correction, using “1/cos θ”, to the blood flow velocity information obtained from the Doppler information);
calculate a pre-configured first measurement value from the corrected blood-flow information ([0075]-[0077], [0116]-[0125], the correspondence relation of volume data (CT) is obtained before the start of the processing);
calculate a pre-configured second measurement value from the volume data ([0075]-[0077], [0116]-[0125], the correspondence relation of volume data (CT) is obtained before the start of the processing); but does not explicitly disclose calculate an index value* related to the subject by using the first measurement value and the second measurement value.
However, in solving the same problem, Grady teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
calculate an index value* ([0039] determining stroke volume and/or ventricle output) related to the subject by using the first measurement value ([0034], [0036], the anatomical model is created from multiple medical images including imaging modalities such as ultrasound and computed tomography, where an estimate of blood supply may be inferred from measurements, including a first measurement, are obtained from imaged data and/or an estimate of a functionally significant compromise of blood flow in one or more blood vessels of the vascular model) and the second measurement value ([0034], [0036], the anatomical model is created from multiple medical images including imaging modalities such as ultrasound and computed tomography).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasonic diagnostic, the image processing device for ultrasonic imaging, and the image processing method for ultrasonic imaging disclosed by Tanaka with the processing circuitry being further configured to calculate an index value related to the subject by using the first measurement value and the second measurement value as taught by Grady in order to calculate affected locations of the patient-specific heart model may include locations experiencing an inadequate (e.g., functionally significant) reduction of blood flow ([0038] of Grady).
*For the purposes of examination, the term has been interpreted as defined in [0087], [0108]-[0115].
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 AMY SHAFQAT whose telephone number is (571)272-4054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-5:30PM MST.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571) 270-1790. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798