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
The Amendment filed January 27, 2026 has been entered. Claims 21-38 remain pending in the application.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. (US 2020/0237452 A1) (“Wolf”) (cited in the non-final rejection dated November 07, 2025) in view of Jenkins et al. (US 2020/0129148 A1) (“Jenkins”).
Regarding claims 21, 27 and 33, Wolf discloses A system/processor-implemented method comprising (Abstract and entire document):
an arthroscopic camera (See at least FIG. 1-5 and [0151] – [0152] arthroscopic surgeries, and discussing the cameras as internal to surgical cavities, within the patient or vasculature of the patient);
a display device (See at least FIG. 1-5 and [0096], “FIG. 1 includes a display screen 113 that may show views from different cameras 115, 121, 123 and 125, as well as other information.”);
memory storing one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions, wherein executing the one or more instructions causes the at least one processor to (See at least FIG. 1-5 and [0097], “In some embodiments, device 301 may include local memory for storing at least some of the data received from sensors 311A and 311B. Additionally, device 301 may include a processor for compressing video/image data before transmitting the data to the data-receiving device.”):
receive, during the surgical procedure, video frames of an anatomy of a patient from the arthroscopic camera (See at least FIG. 1-5 and [0109] – [0113] discussing video frames of anatomy of patient from the arthroscopic cameras); and
display the video frames on the display device (See at least FIG. 1-5 and [0109] – [0113] discussing video frames of anatomy of patient from the arthroscopic cameras);
Wolf fails to disclose during the receiving of video frames: process the video frames to identify at least vascular features of the patient's vasculature;
determine spatial reference locations within the patient's vasculature based at least on the identified vascular features;
receive input to place at least one digital location marker at a respective location within the video frames and associate the respective location within the video frames with a spatial reference location within the patient's vasculature; and
display, on the display device, at least one placed digital location marker at an associated spatial reference location as the arthroscopic camera is moved relative to the anatomy.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jenkins discloses during the receiving of video frames: process the video frames to identify at least vascular features of the patient's vasculature (FIG. 1 and 5 and [0041], “The intraluminal imaging system 100 (or intravascular imaging system) can be any type of imaging system suitable for use in the lumens or vasculature of a patient.” And [0049], “The processing system 106 receives echo data from the scanner assembly 110 by way of the PIM 104 and processes the data to reconstruct an image of the tissue structures in the medium surrounding the scanner assembly 110. Generally, the device 102 can be utilized within any suitable anatomy and/or body lumen of the patient. The processing system 106 outputs image data such that an image of the vessel or lumen 120, such as a cross-sectional IVUS image of the lumen 120, is displayed on the monitor 108.”);
determine spatial reference locations within the patient's vasculature based at least on the identified vascular features (FIG. 5 and associated paragraphs, spatial references 540a/b//c/d/c/f, etc. as spatial reference locations based on vascular features);
receive input to place at least one digital location marker at a respective location within the video frames and associate the respective location within the video frames with a spatial reference location within the patient's vasculature (FIG. 5 and associated paragraphs, spatial references 540a/b//c/d/c/f, etc. para. [0060] discusses the input as assisted or automatic at the respective locations, the markers are at the spatial reference locations within the vasculature); and
display, on the display device, at least one placed digital location marker at an associated spatial reference location as the arthroscopic camera is moved relative to the anatomy (As shown in FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device/system/computer method as taught by Wolf to include during the receiving of video frames: process the video frames to identify at least vascular features of the patient's vasculature; determine spatial reference locations within the patient's vasculature based at least on the identified vascular features; receive input to place at least one digital location marker at a respective location within the video frames and associate the respective location within the video frames with a spatial reference location within the patient's vasculature; and display, on the display device, at least one placed digital location marker at an associated spatial reference location as the arthroscopic camera is moved relative to the anatomy as taught by Jenkins to mark locations simpler, faster ([0008]).
Regarding claims 22, 28 and 34, Wolf as modified discloses The system of claim 21, Wolf as modified further discloses wherein executing the one or more instructions causes the at least one processor to: display, on the display device in association with the anatomy, indications of the identified vascular features of the patient's vasculature (Jenkins As shown in FIG. 5).
Regarding claims 23, 29 and 25, Wolf as modified discloses The system of claim 21, Wolf as modified further discloses wherein executing the one or more instructions causes the at least one processor to: during the receiving of video frames: determine blood flow of the patient's vasculature; and display, on the display device in association with the anatomy, indications of the blood flow of the patient's vasculature (Jenkins As shown in FIG. 5 see also [0043] discussing specific blood flow indications).
Regarding claims 24, 30 and 36, Wolf as modified discloses The system of claim 23, Wolf as modified further discloses wherein the blood flow is blood flow for respective vascular features that is selected from the group consisting of: blood flow volume, blood flow velocity, oxygen delivery level, and nutrient delivery level (Jenkins As shown in FIG. 5 see also [0043] discussing specific blood flow indications such as blood flow volume and velocity).
Regarding claims 25, 31 and 37, Wolf as modified discloses The system of claim 21, Wolf as modified further discloses wherein the identified vascular features are selected from the group consisting of: arteries, arterioles, venules, veins, and capillaries (Jenkins FIG. 1-5 and [0041], “Generally, the device 102 can be utilized within any suitable anatomy and/or body lumen of the patient. The processing system 106 outputs image data such that an image of the vessel or lumen 120”).
Regarding claims 26, 32 and 38, Wolf as modified discloses The system of claim 23, Wolf as modified further discloses wherein executing the one or more instructions causes the at least one processor to: during the receiving of video frames: automatically place, based on the blood flow of the patient's vasculature, at least one digital location marker at a respective location within the video frames and associate the respective location within the video frames with a spatial reference location within the patient's vasculature (Jenkins FIG. 5 and associated paragraphs, spatial references 540a/b//c/d/c/f, etc. para. [0060] discusses the input as assisted or automatic at the respective locations, the markers are at the spatial reference locations within the vasculature).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not solely rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A TOMBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7:00-16:00, F 7:00-11:00(Eastern).
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, Robert Chen can be reached on 571-272-3672. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights