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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/28/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remarks filed on 08/28/2025.
The amendments filed on 08/28/2025 have been entered. Accordingly claims 1-8 remain pending. Claims 1 and 5-7 are presently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended limitation defining the estimation information are merely mental processes as detailed below. Further applicant’s arguments that the abstract ideas are integrated into a practical application is not persuasive. The argument made by applicant that the claimed subject matter provides an improvement to a particular technical field is only applicable in particular to cerebral aneurysms according the specification as filed. Presently, claims 1-2 and 4-8 are not particularly limited to cerebral aneurysms (as reflected by e.g., dependent claims 2 and 4). Claim 3 in combination with the present amendments is directed to the particular technical field of aneurysm visualization with a minimally invasive approach as described in e.g., paragraphs [0003]-[0005] of the pre-grant publication of the instant application. Therefore the 101 rejection of claim 3 has been withdrawn as detailed below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“obtainer” in claim 6;
“generator” in claim 6;
“outputter” in claim 6; and
“video information processing device” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Regarding the “obtainer” the specification discloses “Obtainer 110 is, for example, a communication interface for performing wired or wireless communication.” ([0055] of the US PG Pub. version of the specification). Therefore, the means-plus-function limitation of “obtainer” has been interpreted as a communication interface, or any equivalents thereof in light of the specification.
Regarding the “generator” the specification discloses “Generator 120 is specifically implemented as, a processor, a microcomputer, or a dedicated circuit that executes a program” ([0057] of the US PG Pub. version of the specification). Therefore, the means-plus-function limitation of “generator” has been interpreted as a processor, a microcomputer, a circuit, or any equivalents thereof in light of the specification.
Regarding the “outputter” the specification discloses “Outputter 130 is, for example, a communication interface for performing wired or wireless communication.” ([0060] of the US PG Pub. version of the specification). Therefore, the means-plus-function limitation of “outputter” has been interpreted as a communication interface, or any equivalents thereof in light of the specification.
Regarding the “video information processing device” the specification discloses “Video information processing device 300 is, for example, a personal computer, but may also be a server with high computing performances that is connected to a network.” ([0047] of the US PG Pub. version of the specification). Therefore, the means-plus-function limitation of “video information processing device” has been interpreted as a personal computer, server, or any equivalents thereof in light of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Analysis step 1 of Subject Matter Eligibility Test
The claims are directed to a process (i.e., a wall thickness estimation method) of claims 1-4, 8 and a machine (i.e., a wall thickness estimation device and system) of claims 5-7.
Analysis step 2A, Prong I
The claims recite abstract ideas, in particular mathematical concepts and mental processes. e.g., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claims 1 recites the limitation “generating, based on the behavioral information obtained in the obtaining, estimation information that visualizes a strain of each of the plurality of predetermined points for estimating a thickness of the organ wall or a thickness of the blood vessel wall; and wherein each of the plurality of predetermined points is regarded as a minute cube, wherein the generating the estimation information includes calculating, for each of the plurality of predetermined points, vertical strains of three components relative to a plurality of surfaces of the minute cube corresponding to the predetermined point, and wherein for each of the plurality of predetermined points, the estimation information is information that visualizes, as the strain of the predetermined point, a strain having a maximum value among the vertical strains of the three components relative to the plurality of surfaces of the minute cube corresponding to the predetermined point” which is disclosed as a calculation in at least [0076], [0077], [0079]-[0082], [0083] of the pre-grant publication of the instant application. Amended claim 1 also recites “wherein the estimation information is image data indicating a relationship between (i) a shape of the organ wall or the blood vessel wall and (ii) the strain of each of the plurality of predetermined points, such that a first dot is assigned for each of the predetermined points at which the strain of the predetermined point expands by a predetermined rate or more and a second dot is assigned to the remaining plurality of predetermined points, the second dot being visually different from the first dot” which is a mental process (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Claims 5-7 recite analogous limitations that are also calculations. Claim 8 recites “wherein a treatment for a disease of an organ having the organ wall or a disease of a blood vessel having the blood vessel wall is determined using the outputted estimation information” which is a mental process (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Examiner notes that dependent claims 2-4 merely further define the blood vessel wall.
Analysis step 2A, Prong II
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application in claims 1-2, 4-8 because the additional elements merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and the additional elements of the claims are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g).
Claim 1 recites “obtaining behavioral information based on a video in which an organ wall or a blood vessel wall is captured using four-dimensional angiography, the behavioral information being numerical information about changes over time in a position of each of a plurality of predetermined points in the organ wall or the blood vessel wall”, which is insignificant extra-solution activity, in particular mere data gathering. Claim 1 also recites “outputting the estimation information generated in the generating”, which is insignificant extra-solution activity, in particular insignificant application.
Claim 5 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having a program recorded thereon for causing a computer to execute the wall thickness estimation method according to claim 1”, which are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 6 recites “an obtainer which obtains behavioral information based on a video in which an organ wall or a blood vessel wall is captured using four-dimensional angiography, the behavioral information being numerical information about changes over time in a position of each of a plurality of predetermined points in the organ wall or the blood vessel wall”, which is insignificant extra-solution activity, in particular mere data gathering. Claim 6 also recites “an outputter which outputs the estimation information generated by the generator”, which is insignificant extra-solution activity, in particular insignificant application. Claim 6 also recites “a generator”, which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as being e.g., a processor. This additional element results in mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 7 recites “a video information processing device” which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as being e.g., a personal computer. This additional element results in mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Claim 7 also recites the limitation “obtains the video, generates the behavioral information, and outputs the behavioral information to the obtainer”, which is insignificant extra-solution activity, in particular mere data gathering and insignificant application. Claim 7 also recites “a display which displays the estimation information output by the outputter” which is insignificant extra-solution activity.
The judicial exception is integrated into a practical application in dependent claim 3 in combination with the present amendments to claim 1 because the blood vessel wall is particularly limited to a cerebral aneurysm. This claim reflects an improvement to the particular technical field of aneurysm visualization with a minimally invasive approach as described in e.g., paragraphs [0003]-[0005] of the pre-grant publication of the instant application.
because the additional elements merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and the additional elements of the claims are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(a) II.
Analysis step 2B,
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor and computer are additional elements that merely result in instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer that is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry. The remaining additional elements merely add insignificant extra-solution activity, in particular mere data gathering and insignificant application, to the judicial exception that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are therefore directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a wall thickness estimation method comprising: obtaining behavioral information based on a video in which an organ wall or a blood vessel wall is captured using four-dimensional angiography, the behavioral information being numerical information about changes over time in a position of each of a plurality of predetermined points in the organ wall or the blood vessel wall; generating, based on the behavioral information obtained in the obtaining step, estimation information that visualizes a strain of each of the plurality of predetermined points for estimating a thickness of the organ wall or a thickness of the blood vessel wall; and outputting the estimation information generated in the generating step, wherein each of the plurality of predetermined points is regarded as a minute cube, wherein the generating the estimation information includes calculating, for each of the plurality of predetermined points, vertical strains of three components relative to a plurality of surfaces of the minute cube corresponding to the predetermined point, wherein for each of the plurality of predetermined points, the estimation information is information that visualizes, as the strain of the predetermined point, a strain having a maximum value among the vertical strains of the three components relative to the plurality of surfaces of the minute cube corresponding to the predetermined point, and wherein the estimation information is image data indicating a relationship between (i) a shape of the organ wall or the blood vessel wall and (ii) the strain of each of the plurality of predetermined points, such that a first dot is assigned for each of the predetermined points at which the strain of the predetermined point expands by a predetermined rate or more and a second dot is assigned to the remaining plurality of predetermined points, the second dot being visually different from the first dot; wherein the thickness of the blood vessel is a thickness of a wall of a cerebral aneurysm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINAH ASGHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-0527. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, F 9am-5pm 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797