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 . The amendments provided 02/16/2026 have been entered and considered. Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Prior art rejections
On pages 9-11 of the remarks provided 02/16/2026, applicant contends that the relied upon prior art does not teach the technical features shown in exemplary figure 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
168
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Exemplary Figure 1: technical features outlined in remarks of 02/16/2026
The examiner agrees, specifically with regard to Wang and Sakuragi not explicitly teaching the weight parameters not being judged according to a clinical requirement. Additionally, as stated by the applicant, neither reference performs the ranking required as result of the amendment.
As such, the 103 rejection of the final rejection (12/23/2025) is hereby withdrawn.
However, with respect to technical feature 1, the weighted parameters (with respect to broadest reasonable interpretation) are not impacted by the judgment according to a clinical requirement. As such, said judgment does not appear to need to influence the configuration of the weighted parameters. If this is intended to impact the weighted parameters, it is suggested that the limitation’s language be altered to more explicitly correlate the judgement and the weighted parameter configuration. As it stands, the judgement step can be read as a separate action that also takes place alongside the action of configuration.
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 1-20 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.
In each of the independent claims, the amendment of 2/16/2026 adds “and the degree of importance is judged according to a clinical requirement”. It is unclear to what extent this is a separate step (i.e. the judging) and how this characteristic affects the configuration of the parameters. To the extent that this is not a separate step, this seems to amount to there being an order of importance, but that was already required by the claim. For the device/non-transitory medium claims, it is unclear how this affects the claim except in as a product-by-process limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US publication 20190378312 A1; hereinafter “Wang”) in further view of Sakuragi (US patent 8422752 B2; hereinafter “Sakuragi”), Hao et al. (US publication 20190139275 A1; hereinafter “Hao”), and Okerlund et al. (US publication 20160012613 A1; hereinafter “Okerlund”).
In re to claim 1, Wang teaches wherein: a method for determining a cardiac coronary artery imaging phase, comprising: acquiring a plurality of phase images of a cardiac coronary artery ([0064] lines 1-20 discloses the capture of image data, as shown in Fig. 4 (4102), and describes said data to be of images that may include the coronary artery. Additionally, as these images are captured to determine the phase of the imaged artery, they are understood to be phase images (see [0040], which denotes the use of captured image data in determining the phase));
extracting more than one anatomical components ([0064] lines 1-20 discloses the capture of image data, as shown in Fig. 4 (4102), and describes said data to be of images that may include the coronary artery. Further, the system extracts image data of the anatomical components as described in [0064], which discloses evaluation of objects comprising a patient including a plurality of blood vessels via obtaining image data of said objects. See also [0068] where it explicitly states an extracted region of interest containing “one or more blood vessels”) based on the plurality of phase images respectively ([0067] discloses the determination of sub-images within a region of interest via segmentation. This being understood to be the extraction of images from the phase images (correspondent to the claims)) to obtain a plurality of corresponding to-be-evaluated images (Fig. 4 (4104 and 4106) shows that the sub-images are to be evaluated by their image quality);
calculating image quality scores of the anatomical components in each of the to-be-evaluated images (Fig. 4 (4106), shows the evaluation of the sub-images to determine their quality. Further, per [0073] and [0074] lines 1-4, the determination of quality is according to a quality index in relation to a regularity degree, and is thus understood to disclose a calculated score (being the quality index used to represent an image’s quality));
performing a weighted calculation according to the image quality scores of the more than one target anatomical components (evaluated anatomical elements; [0064] lines 6-13 discloses the evaluation of particular portions of a patient, understood to be indicative of evaluation of targeted anatomical components) and weighted parameters of the more than one anatomical components to obtain a quality score ([0075] discloses that the system performs a weighted sum operation using the regularity degree and sharpness degree to obtain the quality index for an image. Thus, disclosing a weighted calculation, with the regularity degree and sharpness degrees being further understood to be weighted parameters) of each of the to-be-evaluated images (Fig. 4 (4106) shows that the sub-images are the basis of quality determinations (disclosing a quality score for each of the to-be-evaluated images, correspondent to the claims)), wherein the weighted parameters of the more than one target anatomical components are configured by a degree of importance of qualities ([0075] denotes the weighted sum operation according to the regularity degree and the sharpness degree. As this is performed based on the extracted target anatomical components, it is configured by qualities of the plurality of anatomical components (as they contribute to the regularity and sharpness degrees). Additionally, it is understood that the attributed weightings of the regularity and sharpness degrees (as would be needed for a weighted sum operation) are degrees of importance for the two qualities of regularity and sharpness (each respectively))of different anatomical components in a quality of an entire cardiovascular image ([0075] denotes an evaluation of the cardiovascular image (being the image that is having quality scored. Further, it does this with respect to a plurality of anatomical components, per [0064], which discloses evaluation of object comprising a patient including a plurality of blood vessels). Thus, as the system evaluates a plurality of blood vessels, it is understood to evaluate a plurality of different anatomical components (as a result of their plurality)); and
determining a required imaging phase of the cardiac coronary artery ([0064] lines 1-20 discloses the capture of image data, as shown in Fig. 4 (4102), and describes said data to be of images that may include the coronary artery) based on the quality scores of the plurality of to-be-evaluated images (Fig. 5 (5206) shows the determination of a phase of interest (understood to be a required imaging phase) based on the quality scores of the plurality of to-be-evaluated images (each correspondent to the claims, respectively)).
Wang does not explicitly teach wherein: the extracted data is specifically of target coronary arteries. Nor does it teach the that the subsequent phase image processing steps are of explicitly target coronary arteries.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Sakuragi teaches wherein: the extracted data is specifically of target coronary arteries (col. 11 lines 50-56 discloses the extraction of coronary arteries as the target of interest to the system according to positional data. Additionally, it is understood that the coronary arteries being extracted are the target coronary arteries) as well as teaching that the subsequent image processing steps are of explicitly target coronary arteries (col. 14 lines 4-12, discloses further processing of the obtained image data of coronary arteries to obtain index values).
Sakuragi, Like Wang, teaches an imaging system that processes images of vascular data and the extraction of said data to process an image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang, to specifically extract target coronary arteries, as taught by Sakuragi, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would be to focus application on that of coronary arteries by having the system distinctly detect coronary arteries, increasing its usefulness for looking for a specific anatomical structure of interest.
Wang, in view of Sakuragi, does not explicitly teach wherein: the degree of importance is judged according to a clinical requirement.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hao teaches wherein: the degree of importance is judged according to a clinical requirement ([0120] discloses that the system utilizes a judgment module that determines if image quality parameters (which are further suggested to be weights per [0183] lines 5-6, which indicates them to be able to be bias terms/weight matrixes) indicate a pulsatile artifact is present with respect to a quality threshold. It is understood that the quality threshold is a clinical requirement (due to it being a metric used in a medical setting that the parameter is judged against in order to determine that it is of sufficient quality)).
Hao, like Wang, teaches an imaging system that may be applied for cardiac imaging that considers image quality metrics (such as image regularity/uniformity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang, to apply judgement to image quality metrics, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would be to enable the determination of pulsatile artifact, as is a benefit described in Hao [0120].
Wang, in view of Sakuragi and Hao, does not explicitly teach wherein: ranking phases corresponding to global coronary image qualities to determine a required imaging phase.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Okerlund teaches wherein: ranking phases corresponding to global coronary image qualities to determine a required imaging phase ([0051] discloses the ranking of phases according to through-plane metrics (being an image quality metric according to [0048] lines 11-22). It is understood that the through-plane metric is a global coronary image quality by virtue of being a score for through-plane coronary image data (per [0051])).
Okerlund, like Wang, is a system for cardiac imaging with respect to phase data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang, to rank phases, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would be to improve imaging by reducing the impact of motion correlated to the phase, (as is a noted application of selecting the best phase in Okerlund [0048]).
In re to claim 2 [dependent on claim 1], Wang, in view of Sakuragi, Hao, and Okerlund, teaches wherein: the extracting more than one target coronary arteries based on the plurality of phase images respectively to obtain the plurality of corresponding to-be-evaluated images comprises: performing target coronary artery (Sakuragi col. 11 lines 52-60 discloses the extraction of a given coronary artery through obtaining positional data. Thus, performing target coronary artery positioning) positioning on each of the phase images (Wang [0067] discloses the determination of sub-images within a region of interest via segmentation. Fig. 4 shows that the system evaluates each sub-image in order to determine the quality of said images);
determining an image segmentation threshold (Wang [0065] lines 1-7 discloses determination of a threshold for segmentation based on gray levels. It is understood that the resultant threshold is the determined image segmentation threshold); and
extracting the more than one target coronary arteries from the phase image after the target coronary artery positioning (Sakuragi col. 11 lines 52-60 discloses the extraction of a given coronary artery through obtaining positional data for a given region, and as such, extraction of the arteries occurs after coronary artery positioning (correspondent to the claims)) according to the image segmentation threshold (Wang [0069] discloses the determination of a vascular image of interest (noted to be the same as a region of interest in Wang [0068]) based on segmentation thresholding. Thus, a region of interest for the system is first determined based on thresholding in order to locate vascular components (and as such anatomical components))to obtain the corresponding to-be-evaluated image (Sakuragi col. 14 lines 4-12, discloses further processing of the obtained image data of coronary arteries to obtain index values. Further, Wang Fig. 4 shows that the system evaluates the extracted sub-image data following extraction processes like the positional determination of regions of interest. Thus, the sub-images are obtained following extraction of anatomical components).
The reasons for combination are the same as provided above.
In re to claim 3 [dependent on claim 2], Wang, in view of Sakuragi, teaches wherein: the determining the image segmentation threshold comprises: acquiring a pixel value or CT value of the phase image (Wang [0064] lines 1-5 discloses the use of gray levels for pixels (referred to as elements, per [0064] lines 1-5). It is understood that by using the gray level of a pixel for evaluation of image data, the system acquires a pixel value);
acquiring a preset subdivision parameter (Wang [0065] lines 1-7 discloses that a threshold used to segment a vascular object, like that of a blood vessel (per Wang [0065]), may be determined using a predetermined multiple value. Thus, disclosing a preset subdivision parameter that corresponds to an anatomical component) corresponding to the target coronary artery (Sakuragi col. 11 lines 52-60 discloses the extraction of a given coronary artery through obtaining positional data. Thus, performing target coronary artery positioning); and
calculating the image segmentation threshold of the phase image according to the pixel value or CT value and the subdivision parameter(Wang [0065] lines 1-7 discloses that a threshold is used to segment anatomical components according to a predetermined multiple value (due to its use in determining a threshold) and the pixel value (being the value the multiple is applied to)).
The reasons for combination are the same as provided above.
In re to claim 5 [dependent on claim 2], Wang, in view of Sakuragi, Hao, and Okerlund, teaches wherein: prior to the extracting the more than one target coronary arteries from the phase image after the target coronary artery positioning according to the image segmentation threshold to obtain the corresponding to-be- evaluated image, further comprising: reconstructing the phase image by an image interpolation operation (Wang [0065] lines 24-27 discloses the use of interpolation on images processed by the system via thresholding. Thus, as these images are used for the reconstruction process (as suggested by Wang [0066]), it is understood that the reconstruction of phase images may be done using an image interpolation operation. See also Fig. 6, which shows the reconstruction process (including segmentation) for the phase of interest image data).
The reasons for combination are the same as provided above.
In re to claim 6 [dependent on claim 2], Wang, in view of Sakuragi, Hao, and Okerlund, teaches wherein: prior to the extracting the more than one target coronary arteries from the phase image after the target coronary artery positioning according to the image segmentation threshold to obtain the corresponding to-be- evaluated image, further comprising: performing a morphological operation on the phase image (Wang [0118] lines 1-4 discloses the use of top-hat transformation on each images of the region of interest, thus disclosing a morphological operation) to weaken an image background.
The reasons for combination are the same as provided above.
In re to claim 7 [dependent on claim 1], Wang, in view of Sakuragi, Hao, and Okerlund, teaches wherein: the calculating image quality scores of the more than one target coronary arteries in each of the to-be-evaluated images comprises: calculating a plurality of quality evaluation indexes corresponding to the more than one target coronary arteries (Sakuragi col. 11 lines 52-60 discloses the extraction of a given coronary artery through obtaining positional data for a given region) in each of the to-be-evaluated images (Wang Fig. 4 (4106), shows the evaluation of the sub-images to determine their quality. Further, per Wang [0077] each evaluated image corresponds to a quality index of a plurality of quality indexes);
determining weighting parameters of the plurality of quality evaluation indexes (Wang [0075] discloses that the system performs a weighted sum operation using the regularity degree and sharpness degree to obtain the quality index for an image. Thus, disclosing a weighted calculation, with the regularity degree and sharpness degrees being further understood to be weighted parameters. Further, per [0077] each evaluated image corresponds to a quality index of a plurality of quality indexes);and
performing a weighted calculation based on the plurality of quality evaluation indexes corresponding to the more than one target coronary arteries (Sakuragi col. 11 lines 52-60 discloses the extraction of a given coronary artery through obtaining positional data for a given region) and the weighting parameters of the quality evaluation indexes, to obtain the quality scores of the more than one target coronary arteries in the to-be-evaluated image (Wang [0075] discloses that the system performs a weighted sum operation using the regularity degree and sharpness degree to obtain the quality index for an image. Thus, disclosing a weighted calculation, with the regularity degree and sharpness degrees being further understood to be weighted parameters, which per Wang [0075], is done for each image of the images for the plurality of indexes).
The reasons for combination are the same as provided above.
As to claims 11-13 and 15-17, they are the device used to execute the method of claims 1-3 and 5-7, respectively (by virtue of Wang teaching the use of a processor and memory to execute a program to perform its method, see Fig. 1 and [0040] as well as [0053]). As such, they recite similar limitations, and are rejected for the same reasons as provided above.
As to claim 20, it is the non-transitory computer readable medium used to execute the method of claim 1 (by virtue of Wang teaching the use of a processor and memory to execute a program to perform its method, see Fig. 1 and [0040] as well as [0053]). As such, it recites similar limitations, and is rejected for the same reasons as provided above.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Sakuragi, Hao, and Okerlund, in further view of Matthews et al. (US publication 20160110874 A1; hereinafter “Matthews”).
In re to claim 4 [dependent on claim 2], Wang, in view of Sakuragi, Hao, and Okerlund, teaches wherein: prior to the extracting the more than one target coronary arteries from the phase image after the target coronary artery positioning according to the image segmentation threshold to obtain the corresponding to-be- evaluated image, further comprising: a segmentation center according to a position of the target coronary artery (Sakuragi col. 11 lines 52-60 discloses the extraction of a given coronary artery through obtaining positional data for a given region) in the phase image, and delimiting a segmentation region based on the segmentation center, so as to segment the phase image based on the segmentation region (Wang [0085] lines 28-33 discloses the segmentation being determined with respect to the centerline of a given anatomical component (understood to be a segmentation center), and as such based on said centerline. Additionally, as the segmentation determined based on the centerline, it is understood that delimiting of the segmented region (understood to be segmented regions of interest) is based on the centerline)).
The reasons for combination are the same as provided above.
Wang, in view of Sakuragi does not explicitly teach wherein: the system marks a center position
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Matthews teaches wherein: the system marks a center position ([0134], discloses the labeling of a centerline (thus disclosing marking a center position)).
Matthews, Like Wang, teaches a system for the segmentation of anatomical data in relation to phase images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang, in view of Sakuragi, to mark center positions, as taught by Matthews, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would be to create increased visual clarity for a user in relation to the location of detected arteries, increasing the ease to analyze the medical image data.
As to claim 14, it is the device used to execute the method of claim 4 (by virtue of Wang teaching the use of a processor and memory to execute a program to perform its method, see Fig. 1 and [0040] as well as [0053]). As such, it recites similar limitations, and is rejected for the same reasons as provided above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and claims 18-19 (due to reciting similar limitations to claims 8-9) are rejected to as being dependent upon a base claim rejected under 35 USC 112(b), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome the indefiniteness rejection.
The reasons for allowance are the same as provided in the non-final rejection (07/03/2025).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M COOMBER whose telephone number is (571)270-0950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/KEVIN M COOMBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698