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 Amendments
Claims 2, 3, and 6 are cancelled.
The amendments to claims 1, 4, 5, and 7-11 are accepted and entered.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-11 are pending regarding this application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the amendments to the Claims, filed 1/20/2026, applicant’s amendments regarding the Claim Objections of claims 1-11 have been fully considered. As a result, multiple Claim Objections have been resolved. However, some issues remain unresolved. These issues have been re-stated and are included in the Claim Objections section below.
Regarding the Remarks, filed 1/20/2026, applicant’s arguments regarding the 112(b) Rejection applied to claims 1-11 have been fully considered. As a result, 112(b) Rejections have been resolved. However, some issues remain unresolved. These issues have been re-stated and are included in the 112(b) Rejection section below. Additionally, please note that the 112(b) rejection applied to claims 8 and 9 have not been argued nor addressed in the amendment. Therefore, the 112(b) rejections of claims 8 and 9 are repeated in their entirety in the 112(b) section below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the 102 rejection applied to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 have changed the scope of the labels and voxels as recited in the amended claim 1 (see 112(b) rejection). Therefore, a new combination of references is introduced to teach the subject matter in amended claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “along this blood vessel” in lines 17-18. Please delete this phrase, as it introduces a lack of clarity as to which blood vessel is being referenced and does not seem necessary to the structural integrity of the claim language.
Claim 1 recites “a set of labels” in lines 8-9. Claim 1 further recites “a set of labels” in line 10. Please amend the second recitation of “a set of labels” in line 10 to recite “[[a]] the set of labels”.
Claim 1 recites “to generate an estimate whether each…” in line 7. Please amend to recite “to generate an estimate of whether each”.
Claim 1 recites “the lumen of the blood vessel” in line 24. This element lacks antecedent basis. Please amend to recite “a lumen of the blood vessel”.
Claim 5 further recites “the corresponding convolution layer of the contraction path” in line 3. Please amend to recite “the convolution layer which corresponds to the contraction path”.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites “a lumen of the blood vessel” and “a tunica of the blood vessel”. However, newly amended claim 1, upon which claim 9 depends, now includes the recitation of “the lumen of the blood vessel” and “a tunica of the blood vessel”. As a result, please amend to recite “the lumen of the blood vessel” and “the tunica of the blood vessel”.
Note: the applicant is encouraged to carefully consider claim language used to introduce claim elements. Please refer back to the same claim elements and distinguish claim elements from each other when similar but different elements are introduced, claimed, and/or referred back to in each claim.
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, 4-5, and 7-11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
CLAIM 1:
Claim 1 recites “each voxel of the three-dimensional representation” in lines 7-8, “voxels of the three-dimensional representation” in lines 10-11, and “the each voxel of a plurality of voxels of the three-dimensional representation” in lines 12-13. Here, voxels are initially introduced in lines 7-8, and referred to as a plurality of voxels in lines 10-11, which creates inconsistency and a lack of clarity. As such, it is unclear whether “each voxel of the three-dimensional representation” as recited in lines 7-8 are equivalent to the “voxels of the three-dimensional representation” as recited in lines 10-11. Furthermore, each recitation of the voxels (as listed below in the suggested amendment) is inconsistent with either the initial recitation of the “each voxel”, or a subsequent reference to “each voxel”. Applicant’s specification discusses the limitations in question in para. [0015], [0016], [0064], and [0080]. However, none of these sections clarify the specific voxel being referenced in lines 7-8. For purposes of the art rejection, the voxels in every instance are being interpreted broadly to refer to any of the voxels of the three-dimensional representation. A more specific definition of the interpretation of the voxels is highlighted in the art rejection below. One suggested amendment may be to (in regards to the references of the word “voxel”) amend lines 7-8 to read “each voxel of a plurality of voxels of the three-dimensional representation”, amend line 8 to recite “to add a label of the each voxel of a plurality of voxels of the three-dimensional representation”, amend lines 10-11 to recite “the plurality of voxels of the three-dimensional representation”, amend lines 12-13 to recite “the each voxel of the plurality of voxels of the three-dimensional representation”, amend lines 15-16 to recite “being allocated to the each voxel of the plurality of voxels of the three dimensional representation wherein the value of the each voxel exceeds said predetermined threshold value”, amend line 18 to recite “the plurality of voxels of the three-dimensional representation”, amend line 19 to read “the plurality of voxels of the three-dimensional representation being those”, and amend lines 20-21 to recite “the each voxel of the plurality of voxels of the three-dimensional representation”.
Claim 1 recites “the allocated labels” in line 13, however, this element lacks antecedent basis, as there is no previous recitation of “allocated labels”. Additionally, it is unclear if these “allocated labels” are equivalent or distinct from the set of labels defined in limitation (b). Claim 1 additionally recites “a label of the voxel” in line 8, “a second label of the allocated labels” in lines 14-15, “a first label” in line 22, “a second label” in line 25, and “a third label” in line 27. It is unclear whether the label defined in line 8 is distinct or equivalent to the label defined in line 22. Additionally, it is unclear whether the “a second label” in lines 14-15 is equivalent to the “a second label” in line 25. Please amend to distinctly clarify the distinction between the allocated labels, the set of labels, and the first/second/third labels. Applicant’s specification discusses the labels in question in at least para. [0036]-[0044]. However, none of these sections clarify the distinction between the allocated labels, the set of labels, and the first/second/third labels.
Claims 4-5 and 7-11 are rejected for similar reasons as dependent on claim 1. As such, please consider correcting subsequent recitations of voxels and labels in claims 4-5 and 7-11 to create consistency and avoid further 112(b) issues.
CLAIM 8:
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear whether “a first predetermined threshold value” and “a second predetermined threshold value” as recited in line 5 and line 10, is equivalent to the introduction of the predetermined threshold value in claim 1, upon which claim 8 is dependent. For the purposes of the prior art rejection, the predetermined threshold value in claim 1 is being broadly interpreted as any predetermined threshold value, while the first and second predetermined threshold values in claim 8 are being interpreted as distinct from the predetermined threshold value introduced in claim 1.
CLAIM 9:
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites “the labels of the lumen and the labels of the tunica”. It is unclear how the labels lumen of the blood vessel are located at a boundary of the map between the labels of the lumen and the labels of the tunica. Essentially, how can the labels of the lumen be located at a boundary between the labels of the lumen (itself) and the labels of the tunica. FIG. 7 shows 2T and 2L, however, it remains unclear how the 2L labels are located at a boundary between the 2T labels and the 2L labels. Applicant’s specification discusses this process in para. [0040], [0044], [0063], [0064]. However, none of these sections clarify how the labels of the lumen can be located at a boundary between itself and the labels of the tunica. For the purposes of prior art mapping, the labels of the lumen will be interpreted as equivalent to the boundary between the lumen (2L) and the tunica (2C) as shown in FIG. 7 of Applicant’s Drawings, filed 06/30/2025.
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 1, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dey et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0243764 A1), hereinafter Dey in view of Tegzes et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0315188 A1), hereinafter Tegzes.
Regarding claim 1, Dey teaches a method for aiding in the diagnosis of a cardiovascular disease of a blood vessel of a patient (Dey teaches a method (see FIG. 4) which involves “analyzing plaques formed in an arterial wall of a coronary artery of a heart of a patient” as shown in para. [0031]; see also FIG. 1; here, the analysis of the arterial wall is used to aid in the diagnosis of cardiovascular disease as further suggested in para. [0006]-[0007]), comprising the following steps:
a. providing a three-dimensional representation of the blood vessel of the patient, obtained by a medical imaging device (Dey teaches a “scanning device 5 [which] captures multiple images of the heart 3 from outside the chest […wherein a] three dimensional representation is typically constructed”, wherein the three-dimensional representation includes coronary arteries and an aorta as shown in para. [0051]-[0052]);
b. segmenting, by means of a classifier, said three-dimensional representation to obtain a segmented three-dimensional map of said three-dimensional representation (Dey teaches an “APQ module 102 [which] may be configured (when executed) to perform knowledge-based segmentation of coronary arteries and geometrical coronary artery modeling” in para. [0062]; these segmented arteries are interpreted as equivalent to the three-dimensional map; the algorithm which can be implemented by the apq model is interpreted as the classifier (see para. [0090] and [0059]), the classifier being arranged to generate an estimate whether each voxel of the three-dimensional representation belongs to the blood vessel and to add a label of the voxel to a set of labels as a function of the estimate, said segmented three-dimensional map being formed by a set of labels assigned by the classifier to voxels of the three-dimensional representation (Dey teaches that “the APQ module 102 may also be configured to perform connected voxel grouping in three dimensions to quantify the non-calcified and calcified coronary plaque components” in para. [0062]; since voxels are being grouped and labeled within the blood vessel, it is inferred that they are being labeled based on a determination of whether they belong to the blood vessel);
c. comparing a value of the each voxel of a plurality of voxels of the three-dimensional representation, the allocated labels on the three-dimensional map of the voxels (interpreted as the voxels that belong to the said blood vessel) being those of the blood vessel (Dey teaches labeling voxels in para. [0062-0063] wherein all the labels are parts of the blood vessel), with a predetermined threshold value (Dey teaches scan-specific attenuation thresholds in para. [0061], wherein the attenuation threshold is broadly interpreted as a predetermined threshold based on luminal attenuation values [0063] and used for performing the comparison of voxels), a second label of the allocated labels different from those of the blood vessel being allocated to each voxel with the value of each voxel that exceeds said predetermined threshold value (Dey teaches that “the APQ module 102 causes the one or more processors to derive scan-specific attenuation thresholds” for each of the components of the blood vessel in para. [0061]; here, if the value does not fall into the threshold of the artery components, it is labeled as epicardial fat, which surrounds the artery (blood vessel) and is not a part of the artery itself; see FIG. 5);
d. determining a change in a geometric indicator of the blood vessel along this blood vessel by means of the voxels of the three-dimensional representation (Dey teaches “a NCP volume, a CP volume, and/or a plaque composition (e.g., a percentage of non-calcified components versus a percentage of calcified components within one or more of the plaques 11A and 11B) may be calculated and optionally displayed” in para. [0106] wherein the volume is defined based on the classified voxels; here, the geometric indicator is the volume (see para. [0006] of the applicant’s specification wherein the geometric indicator can be a volume) and the change here is the volume of the CP vs NCP), the allocated labels on the three-dimensional map of the aforementioned voxels (interpreted as the voxels that belong to the said blood vessel) being those of the blood vessel (Dey teaches determining labels of voxels associated with the blood vessel on a three dimensional scan in para. [0062-0063]);
wherein the classifier is arranged to generate for each voxel of the three- dimensional representation one of the following three labels (Note: The word “one of” is being interpreted as correlative with “or”, which means only one of the following limitations needs to be found in the prior art):
i) if the voxel is outside the blood vessel, then the classifier allocating a first label to the voxel (Dey teaches labeling a voxel as part of the epicardial fat if it falls within a specific threshold in FIG. 5; the epicardial fat is outside the blood vessel),
ii) if the voxel belongs to the lumen of the blood vessel, then the classifier allocating a second label to the voxel (Dey teaches that “the APQ module 102 causes the one or more processors to derive scan-specific attenuation thresholds for the lumen 10 (or blood “B” therein)” in para. [0061]; see also FIG. 5), or
iii) if the voxel belongs to a tunica of the blood vessel, then the classifier allocating a third label to the voxel (Dey teaches determining whether a voxel belongs to the arterial wall in para. [0092] and FIG. 5; here, the arterial wall is being interpreted as equivalent to the tunica);
wherein the segmentation step is implemented by the classifier implementing a machine learning algorithm (Dey teaches “to segment the arterial wall 9, the computing device 6 may use a multistep adaptive algorithm” in para. [0090]) and wherein the segmentation step comprises the segmentation by means of the classifier (Dey teaches determining segments by classifying regions as blood or lumen in para. [0088]; see also the process in para. [0061]-[0063], wherein the segmentation process occurs by utilizing a classification process).
Dey fails to teach “wherein the classifier is the classifier of three axial, sagittal and coronal cross sections of said three-dimensional representation to obtain three segmented two-dimensional maps and a step of combining the three two-dimensional maps to obtain said three-dimensional map”. However, Tegzes teaches wherein the classifier is the classifier of three axial, sagittal and coronal cross sections of said three-dimensional representation to obtain three segmented two-dimensional maps and a step of combining the three two-dimensional maps to obtain said three-dimensional map (Tegzes teaches utilizing a classifier to identify organs by “using a convolutional network with slices in three directions (axial, coronal, sagittal) and classifying” in para. [0109], wherein “a composite or 3D image can be generated with information from the [2D axial, coronal, and sagittal] slices 1310-1330” as further shown in para. [0110]. Here, this composite 3D image is interpreted as equivalent to the 3D map. See also Dey’s teaching of the 3D map in para. [0104]).
Dey and Tegzes are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of segmenting medical images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dey to incorporate the teachings of Tegzes and include “wherein the classifier is the classifier of three axial, sagittal and coronal cross sections of said three-dimensional representation to obtain three segmented two-dimensional maps and a step of combining the three two-dimensional maps to obtain said three-dimensional map”. The motivation for doing so would have been to utilize user input in order to “remove irrelevant portions of an image and/or objects in the image to optimize or otherwise improve further processing of the image. In certain examples, the anatomy detector 1120 first segments axial slices into two-dimensional (2D)-connected (non-air) regions. Then, the 2D regions are classified into body and other classes using a support vector machine (SVM). Three-dimensional (3D) post-processing is then applied to preserve the 3D continuity of the body or portion of the anatomy being imaged”, as suggested by Tegzes in para. [0103]-[0104]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Dey with Tegzes to obtain the invention specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Dey and Tegzes teach the method according to claim 1,
wherein, at the end of the segmentation step and prior to the comparison step, a step of confirming and correcting the labels allocated by the classifier to the voxels of the three-dimensional representation (Tegzes teaches that, “during operation, neural network classifications can be confirmed or denied (e.g., by an expert user, expert system, reference database, etc.) to continue to improve neural network behavior” as shown in para. [0064]. See also para. [0062] and para. [0100] wherein the classifications occur at a voxel level. Additonally, Tegzes teaches that “feedback obtained from manual user corrections of contours can be used to improve the models and the segmentation tool” as shown in para. [0132]. See also para. [0183] and FIG. 28).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dey to incorporate the teachings of Tegzes and include “wherein the classifier is the classifier of three axial, sagittal and coronal cross sections of said three-dimensional representation to obtain three segmented two-dimensional maps and a step of combining the three two-dimensional maps to obtain said three-dimensional map”. The motivation for doing so would have been “to continue to improve neural network behavior”, “to improve the models and the segmentation tool”, and “to establish coherent labeling based on a known sequence of regions and provide minimal or reduced cost continuous labeling, a CNN output 2840 and resulting image 2850 reduce or avoid mis-classified slices” as suggested by Tegzes in para. [0064], [0132], and [0183], respectively. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Dey with Tegzes to obtain the invention specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Dey and Tegzes teach the method according to claim 1,
wherein the comparison step is implemented for the plurality of voxels whose allocated labels on the three-dimensional map are those of a lumen of the blood vessel and are located at a boundary of the three-dimensional map between the labels of the lumen and the labels of a tunica of the blood vessel (Dey teaches “the arterial lumen 10 (and blood “B” therein) may be removed or segmented from the arterial wall 9 when the plaques 11A and 11B are analyzed. To reduce the likelihood of bias caused by incorrect arterial lumen segmentation, in block 140, the computing device 6 may automatically define a vessel neighborhood “VN” along the luminal centerlines “CL1”-“CL6,” having a maximum radius “R” from the luminal centerlines” in para. [0072]; it is inferred from the section that the boundary between the arterial wall (tunica) and lumen is analyzed).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dey et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0243764 A1), hereinafter Dey in view of Tegzes et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0315188 A1), hereinafter Tegzes and Li et al. (CN 112001928 A, see English translation for citations), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 4, Dey and Tegzes teach the method according to claim 1.
While Tegzes teaches wherein the classifier is a convolutional neural network (Tegzes, see para. [0109]), Dey and Tegzes fail to teach wherein the classifier is a convolutional neural network, comprising a contraction path and an expansion path, wherein the contraction path comprises a plurality of convolution layers each associated with a correction layer arranged to implement an activation function and downsampling layers, each downsampling layer being followed by at least one convolution layer, wherein the expansion path comprises the plurality of convolution layers and upsampling layers, each upsampling layer being followed by at least one convolution layer.
However, Li teaches a method of blood vessel segmentation (Li, see abstract) wherein the classifier is a convolutional neural network, comprising a contraction path and an expansion path (Li teaches a UNet network, which is interpreted as a classifier which is also a CNN (as shown in para. [0065], wherein “the UNet network consists of a contraction path and an expansion path” as shown in para. [0082]),
wherein the contraction path comprises a plurality of convolution layers each associated with a correction layer arranged to implement an activation function and downsampling layers, each downsampling layer being followed by at least one convolution layer (Li teaches “the [contraction] path follows a typical convolutional network structure, which consists of two repeated 33 convolutional kernels (unfilled convolution), and both use a modified linear unit (ReLU) activation function and a 22 max pooling operation with a step size of 2 for downsampling (downsampling)” wherein “the number of feature channels is doubled in each downsampling step” in para. [0082]; here, the downsampling layers are followed by one convolutional layer),
wherein the expansion path comprises the plurality of convolution layers and upsampling layers, each upsampling layer being followed by at least one convolution layer (Li teaches “in the dilation path, each step involves upsampling (upsampling)” in para. [0082], wherein each step results in a convolution operation).
Dey, Tegzes, and Li are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of segmenting blood vessels from three-dimensional imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dey (as modified by Tegzes) to incorporate the teachings of Li and include “wherein the classifier is a convolutional neural network, comprising a contraction path and an expansion path, wherein the contraction path comprises a plurality of convolution layers each associated with a correction layer arranged to implement an activation function and downsampling layers, each downsampling layer being followed by at least one convolution layer, wherein the expansion path comprises the plurality of convolution layers and upsampling layers, each upsampling layer being followed by at least one convolution layer”. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve “the segmentation efficiency” of blood vessels, as suggested by Li in para. [0080]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Dey and Tegzes with Li to obtain the invention specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Dey, Tegzes, and Li teach the method according to claim 4,
wherein an output of each upsampling layer is concatenated, before entering a next convolution layer, to a feature map (Li teaches “each step involves upsampling (upsampling) the feature map” in para. [0082]; since the feature map itself is upsampled, it is inferred that the upsampling output is concatenated to the feature map) arising from the corresponding convolution layer of the contraction path through a connection hop between the contraction path and the expansion path (Li teaches “corresponding cut characteristic graphs in the cascade contraction path are obtained” in para. [0082]; here, the feature map (characteristic graph) is obtained by the corresponding contraction path). Similar motivations as applied to claim 4 can be applied here to claim 5.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dey et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0243764 A1), hereinafter Dey in view of Tegzes et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0315188 A1), hereinafter Tegzes and Holladay et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0320775 A1), hereinafter Holladay.
Regarding claim 8, Dey and Tegzes teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the comparison step comprises:
a. a first sub-step of comparing the value of each voxel of the plurality of voxels of the three-dimensional representation, the allocated labels on the three-dimensional map of the voxels being those of the blood vessel, with a first predetermined threshold value (the threshold here is being interpreted as different from the threshold initially referenced in claim 1)(Dey teaches comparing the value of each components (which are made of a plurality of voxels) with a predetermined threshold value in para. [0061-0062]; see also para. [0090-0092]);
b. a second sub-step of comparing the value of each voxel of the plurality of voxels of the three-dimensional representation, the allocated labels on the three-dimensional map of the voxels being those of the blood vessel (Dey, see FIG. 5 and para. [0062], wherein the values of the voxels are analyzed and labels are assigned to the voxels regarding whether they belong to the blood vessel), with a second predetermined threshold value that is less than the first threshold value (Dey teaches that “the attenuation values (e.g., measured in Hounsfield units (“HU”)) each indicate an amount by which X-rays are attenuated (e.g., scattered or absorbed) by the heart 3 in a particular location” in para. [0050], wherein the thresholds are based on the attenuation value that matches the specific component. The reference included to teach the first limitation similarly teaches thresholding to identify components based on HU values. As a result, it is inherent that the second predetermined threshold would be less than the first threshold value since stents have a much higher HU value than calcification), a second label associated with calcification being allocated to each voxel with the value that exceeds said second predetermined threshold value (Dey teaches that “any voxels connected to the voxels classified as calcified components, that also have attenuation values greater than the CP lower threshold are classified as calcified components” in para. [0101]).
Dey and Tegzes fail to teach a first label associated with a stent being allocated to each voxel with a value that exceeds said first predetermined threshold value.
However, Holladay teaches a first label associated with a stent being allocated to each voxel with the value that exceeds said first predetermined threshold value (Holladay teaches “the region of interest method 224 can be programmed to evaluate HU values associated with voxels representing the segmented image volume data for the anatomic structure relative to the plurality of HU thresholds” wherein “the region of interest method 224 can be programmed to identify voxels based on the evaluation representing a stent in the segmented image volume data” as shown in para. [0047]; the identification of voxels representing a stent is interpreted as equivalent to assigning a label to the voxel).
Dey, Tegzes, and Holladay are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of segmenting blood vessels from three-dimensional imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Dey (as modified by Tegzes) to incorporate the teachings of Holladay and include “a first label associated with a stent being allocated to each voxel with the value that exceeds said first predetermined threshold value”. The motivation for doing so would have been that “by providing the region of interest model, for example, of calcified regions of the anatomic structure can allow for effective procedure planning and navigation during the procedure”, as suggested by Holladay in para. [0016]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Dey and Tegzes with Holladay to obtain the invention specified in claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The best prior art of record is Dey, Tegzes, Li, Holladay and Huang et al. (CN 106803251 A, see English translation). Prior art applied alone or in combination with fails to anticipate or render obvious claims 10-11.
Claim 10
Regarding Claim 10, dependent upon claim 1, Dey in view of Tegzes teaches the limitation recited in claim 1.
Dey further teaches determining a diameter of the arterial wall in para. [0092].
Huang teaches wherein the step of determining the evolution of the geometric indicator of the blood vessel is a step of determining the evolution of a diameter of the blood vessel; calculating the barycenter of internal blood vessel area image; and determining a local diameter of the blood vessel.
However, neither Dey, nor Tegzes, nor Li, nor Holladay, nor Huang, nor the combination, teaches a step of estimating a graph traveling the entire blood vessel and each point of the graph is a barycenter of the voxels located in a cross section of the three-dimensional representation locally orthogonal to the graph and the allocated labels of the blood vessel; wherein a local diameter of the blood vessel is determined as a function of each of the points of the graph, in combination with the other elements of the claim.
Claim 11 includes allowable subject matter by virtue of being dependent upon claim 10.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to KYLA G ALLEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5315. The examiner can
normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 4:30pm EST.
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,
John Villecco can be reached on (571) 272-7319. 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.
/Kyla Guan-Ping Tiao Allen/
Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661