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 and written response filed 12/04/2025 have been entered and considered.
Claims 1, 11, 19 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 11 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gopinath and Wilson et al (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0125337 A1).
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 1-5, 9-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopinath et al (“Gopinath” hereinafter, U.S. Publication No. 2016/0171711 A1) in view of Wilson et al (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0125337 A1).
As per claim 1, Gopinath discloses a method comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, an image frame and an identification of a region of plaque in the image frame (paragraphs [0057]-[0058]: a cross-sectional OCT image frame with calcium plaque 160), wherein the image frame is taken by an imaging device (paragraph [0047]: OCT probe 17) while the imaging device was in a lumen depicted in the image frame (paragraph [0057]: vessel lumen 110); identifying, by the one or more processors, a lumen-center of the lumen depicted in the image frame (paragraph [0057]: “a series of concentric rings 140 in the center of the vessel lumen to assist in orienting the image and demarcating the direction of the lumen”); and generating, by the one or more processors and using at least the lumen-center, a lumen-centered arc (see figures 10-16 for lumen-centered arc having a coverage angle centered on the lumen-center).
However, Gopinath does not explicitly teach “wherein the image frame includes a boundary that encloses a portion of the image depicting parts of the lumen and surrounding tissue captured by the imaging device for a field of view” and “a lumen centered arc that is projected onto the boundary so as to indicate a coverage angle of plaque”.
Wilson teaches an image frame includes a boundary that encloses a portion of the image depicting parts of the lumen and surrounding tissue captured by the imaging device for a field of view” in figure 6; and “a lumen centered arc that is projected onto the boundary so as to indicate a coverage angle of plaque” in paragraph [0069]: “the calcification arc is the angle between the rays at the boundary of the calcification” with a lumen centroid O and calcification 640 from the lumen 630.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gopinath in view of Wilson to project a lumen centered arc onto the boundary to indicate a coverage angle of plaque. One would be motivated to do so because it would allow the user to easily view “plaque average thickness, average depth and angle” that were calculated automatically.
As per claim 2, Gopinath discloses wherein the identification of the region of plaque comprises a mask, wherein a region of pixels in the mask corresponds to the region of plaque depicted in the image frame (paragraph [0052]: Gopinath teaches image masks for determining plaque sizes, plaque circumference and plaque locations).
As per claim 3, Gopinath discloses identifying endpoints of the region of plaque through which lines tangential to the region of plaque pass through the endpoints and the lumen-center, wherein the lines tangential to the region of plaque define the coverage angle of the lumen-centered arc (paragraph [0088] and figure 13B).
As per claim 4, Gopinath discloses wherein the identification of the region of plaque comprises a mask, wherein a region of pixels in the mask corresponds to the region of plaque in the image frame, wherein the identification comprises data defining the positions of pixels in the mask corresponding to the region of plaque and expressed as polar coordinates relative to a device-center of the imaging device while the imaging device was in the lumen, and wherein the method further comprises converting the positions of pixels from polar coordinates relative to the device-center, to polar coordinates relative to the lumen-center (figures 1B and 1C).
As per claim 5, Gopinath discloses wherein identifying the lumen-center comprises: computing a lumen contour of the lumen; generating a spline estimate of the lumen contour; and identifying the lumen-center as an estimation of a centroid from a plurality of samples of the spline estimate (figures 10 -14; for example, L mode imaging view is employed to generate a spline estimate of the lumen contour, and plaque region of each frame can be estimated from the lumen-center).
As per claim 9, Gopinath discloses wherein the method further comprises: generating, by the one or more processors and at least partially using the coverage angle of the lumen-centered arc, one or more calcium scoring metric values corresponding to the region of plaque (see figures 10-16 for angle of the lumen-centered arc).
As per claim 10, Gopinath discloses wherein the region of plaque is a first region of plaque of a plurality of regions of plaque in the image frame, and wherein the method further comprises generating, for each of the plurality of regions of media, a respective lumen-centered arc having a respective coverage angle centered on the lumen-center (see figures 9A-F for detecting multiple regions of interest with respect to the lumen-center).
As per claim 11, see explanation in claim 1, the examiner notes Gopinath’s system is a computer-like system, which inherently includes a processor.
As per claim 12, see explanation in claim 2.
As per claim 13, see explanation in claim 3.
As per claim 14, see explanation in claim 4.
As per claim 15, see paragraph [0010] for converting from cartesian coordinates to polar coordinates.
As per claim 16, see explanation in claim 5.
As per claim 18, see figures 10-16 for highlighted arc.
As per claim 19, see figures 10-16 for displaying the lumen-centered arc along with the boundary of the display viewport.
As per claim 20, see explanation in claim 1, Gopinath’s system is a computer-like system, which inherently includes a non-transitory computer-readable storage media.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 17 are 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM Y LU whose telephone number is (571)272-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272 - 7778. 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.
/TOM Y LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights