DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1,2,4,5,12,13,17,19,21,26,28,29,35,38,43,44,45,59,60 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more:
Claim(s) 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated1 by Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1); and
Claim(s) 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated2 by Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1):
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 further in view of Markova et al. (US 2011/0158491 A1):
Claim(s) 17,19,21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 further in view of Markova et al. (US 2011/0158491 A1) as applied in claim 13 and Buckler et al. (US 2019/0159737 A1):
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) in view of as applied in claims 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43, 44 further in view of Itu et al. (US 2019/0336096 A1):
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 further in view of Itu et al. (US 2019/0336096 A1) as applied in claim 26 further in view of Grady et al. (US 2015/0089337 A1):
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 further in view of ROTMAN (WO 2011/148340 A1) with SEARCH machine translation:
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 in view of WASHBURN et al. (DE 102008013719 A1) with SEARCH machine translation:
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 further in view of MINE et al. (US 2018/0092628 A1):
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 further in view of Mintz et al. (US 2017/0084027 A1):
Claim(s) 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 further in view of Heigl et al. (US 2004/0210403 A1):
Claim(s) 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 in view of Gulsun et al. (US 2022/0287668 A1):
Response to Amendment
The amendment was received 6/29/2026.
Claims pending: 1,2,4,5,12,13,17,19,21,26,28,29,35,38,43,44,45,59,60 and 50,51,53;
Claims withdrawn: 50,51,53
Claims cancel: 3,6,7,8,9,10,11,14,15,16,18,20,22,23,24,25,27,30,31,32,33,34,36,37,39,40,41,42,46,47,48,49,52,54,55,56,57,58;
PNG
media_image1.png
798
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Election/Restrictions
Claims 50,51,53 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, claims 50,51,53,55, and 58, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 29, 2026.
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on June 29, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a)3 or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application Nos.:
AUSTRALIA 2021902323 07/28/2021 &
AUSTRAILIA 2021221669 08/25/2021,
fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The claimed “categorize all slices between the start and end slices” of claim 59 is not (“in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms”: 35 USC 112(a)) in:
AUSTRALIA 2021902323 07/28/2021 &
AUSTRAILIA 2021221669 08/25/2021.
Accordingly, claims 59 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application:
AUSTRALIA 2021902323 07/28/2021 &
AUSTRAILIA 2021221669 08/25/2021.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 (Previously Presented) of the amendment, page 3 (reproduced below), of 6/29/2026 is not consistent with claim 5 (Currently Amended) of the preliminary amendment, page 4 (reproduced below) of January 26, 2024; thus, claim 5 (Currently Amended) of January 26, 2024 is interpreted as amended then deleted resulting in claim 5 (Previously Presented) of the most recent amendment, page 3 (reproduced below), of 6/29/2026:
PNG
media_image2.png
998
719
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
998
774
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is not required since claim 5 is self-correcting. Thus the objection to claim 5 is withdrawn.
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 1,2,4,5,12,13,17,19,21,26,28,29,35,38,43,44,45,59,60 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more:
PNG
media_image1.png
798
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 0: establish broadest reasonable interpretation (the largest circle) and “full scope”4 which includes if any “a narrow subset”5 (smaller circles and intersections thereof: “&” means “OR”/”AND”) of claim scope of the broadest reasonable interpretation:
PNG
media_image4.png
729
681
media_image4.png
Greyscale
;
Step 1: Claim 1 is a machine;
Stp 2A, png 1: The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea (mental process and math):
--analyses received patient CT scan data and produce CAD analysis data … identify a start location and an end location …
identifying…categorizing…
a model …
the model …
identify presence and characterisation of each individual stenosis lesion based on the visual indication --:
1. (Currently Amended) A coronary artery disease (CAD) analysis system comprising:
a CAD analysis device that {{analyses received patient CT scan data and6 produces CAD analysis data}} indicative of presence and characterisation of coronary artery disease in the patient CT scan data, the CAD analysis data indicative of {{at least one}} {{individual stenosis lesion on a coronary artery and a characterisation of the stenosis lesion}};
the CAD analysis system identifying {{each categorisingeach individual stenosis lesion}}; and
the CAD analysis system comprising a user interface that displays a model7 of coronary arteries of a patient based on the patient CT scan data, the model including {{ a visualionof each a visual indication of each }} a identify presence and characterisation of each individual stenosis lesion based on the visual indication;
{{wherein the characterisation of the individual stenosis lesion includes a stenosis level for the individual stenosis lesion}}8.
Step 2A,Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (not in bold in claim 1, above) do not improve the functioning of a computer or is not a treatment (prophylaxis) in view of applicant’s disclosure (pages 12, 14, annotated below):
PNG
media_image5.png
1141
755
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
1290
841
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements considered individually or in combination with the abstract idea adheres to the conventional background of applicant’s disclosure:
.
PNG
media_image7.png
968
844
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Suggestions
MPEP 2106.07(a) Formulating a Rejection For Lack of Subject Matter Eligibility [R-07.2022]
II. WHEN MAKING A REJECTION, EXPLAIN WHY THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM ELEMENTS DO NOT RESULT IN THE CLAIM AS A WHOLE INTEGRATING THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION OR AMOUNTING TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION (STEP 2A PRONG TWO AND STEP 2B), last para:
In the event a rejection is made, it is a best practice for the examiner to consult the specification (substitute specification, filed 1/26/2024, page 34) to determine if there are elements (“quickly…quickly…quickly”) that could be added to the claim to make it eligible. If so, the examiner should identify those elements (“quickly…quickly…quickly”) in the Office action and suggest them as a way to overcome the rejection:
PNG
media_image8.png
999
689
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Priority
The examiner agrees with applicant’s remarks of 6/29/2026, page 9 regarding priority and adequate support and enablement of claim 1.
Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant's arguments filed June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicants state in page 10, 2nd paragraph:
A human could not practically perform all claimed features as a mental process, and moreover claim 1 recites a specific, concrete system that produces a specific, tangible output, not an abstract mathematical concept or mental process. Therefore, this is not a mental process.
The examiner respectfully disagrees since claim 1 has “analyses…data” “at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind “.9
Applicants state in page 10, penult para & page 10, last para continued on page 11 & page 11, 2nd para:
Even if the claims were considered to recite an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), the claims integrate any such idea into a practical application. The claimed system is not merely a generic computer performing generic functions. Rather, it is a system specifically configured to carry out a particular practical implementation, in that it automatically analyses CT scan data, identifies and categorises individual stenosis lesions, and displays this information visually on a coronary artery model so that a user can quickly and easily see where all stenosis lesions are located and how severe they are.
The user interface is displayed on a screen of the interface device, presents information to a user and facilitates interaction with the user in a convenient, concise, intuitive and user-friendly way. In this way, the user is provided with an interface that enables the user to quickly ascertain relevant patient CAD-related information and thereby make determinations as to CAD risk, CAD existence and appropriate steps for mitigation and/or treatment.
The claimed system thus provides a specific technological improvement to the
technological process of coronary artery disease analysis, enabling clinicians to rapidly identify
and assess stenosis lesions in a manner that was not previously possible. The technological
improvement enables automated identification and characterization of individual stenosis lesions. The claims define a specific, technical system, i.e., CAD analysis device, that produces a specific, useful result or specific technical analysis of CT scan data, thus, not an abstract
analysis. Finally, the claimed system represents a particular way of solving a technical problem
and is not merely applying an abstract concept on generic hardware.
The examiner respectfully disagrees:
Since “an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”10
Claim Reiections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant's arguments filed June 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., remarks, page 13, last S: “discrete, individual stenosis lesions as distinct entities” ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., remarks, page 14, 1st S: “a set of individually identified and characterised lesions” ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., remarks, page 14, 2nd para, last S: “ individually identified and characterised discrete lesions”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants state in page 14, penult para:
Heigl does not identify individual stenosis lesions, does not categorise stenosis severity, and does not display a model with visual indications of individual lesions and their characterisations.
In response, Heigl is only relied upon to teach the claimed “start and end”:
Heigl teach the difference of claim 59 of:
start11 and end12 (slices)13…14
the start and end (slices) (or likewise: “ [0045] As shown in FIG. 8, the user 10 first prescribes a starting point 28 and an ending point 29 for the computer.” via fig. 8:
PNG
media_image9.png
907
1072
media_image9.png
Greyscale
).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., remarks, page 14, last para, penult S: “boundaries of an identified stenosis lesion”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Thus Combining Isgum's per-position classification with Heigl's navigation method would result in a system that identifies each individual stenosis lesion, categorises each individual stenosis lesion, and displays a model with visual indications of each individual lesion and each individual lesion characterisation, as required by amended independent claim 1.
New Claim
Claim(s) 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) in view of Heigl et al. (US 2004/0210403 A1), wherein Hiegl is as discussed in above applicant’s remarks.
Claim(s) 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) in view of Gulsun et al. (US 2022/0287668 A1), wherein Gulsun uses machine learning to segment an image as binary 1s (white) and 0s (black) bit-mask:
PNG
media_image10.png
636
1054
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated15 by Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1); and
Claim(s) 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated16 by Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1):
PNG
media_image11.png
795
311
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Re 1.17 (Currently Amended), Isgum discloses A coronary artery disease (CAD) analysis system (likewise) comprising18:
a CAD analysis device (comprising “analysis” “step 204” [0078]: fig. 2:204: “Machine learning based Vessel Obstruction Assessment (VOA) model to predict coronary parameters”) that s received19 (&) patient20 (&) CT21 scan22 data (or CT scan body wave-information via “CT scan” “imaging”23 [0062], 1st S: fig. 2:201: “Obtain image dataset”) and produces (via the arrows of fig. 2) CAD analysis data indicative of presence and characterisation of coronary artery disease (“parameter along the axial trajectory within the VOI” [0066] last S) in the patient CT scan data (or CT scan body wave-information via “CT scan” “imaging” [0062], 1st S: fig. 2:201: “Obtain image dataset”), the CAD analysis data indicative of at least one individual stenosis24 lesion25 (“classified by…luminal narrowing” [0099] last two Ss: fig. 1: “Atherosclerosis”) on a coronary artery (Fig. 1: “Normal coronary artery”) and26 a characterization (via “ characterizing a CAD related parameter along the axial trajectory within the VOI. For example, the CAD related parameter values may represent at least one of the plaque type, anatomical stenosis severity” [0091, 2nd & 3rd Ss) of the stenosis lesion (“classified by…luminal narrowing” [0099] last two Ss: fig. 1: “Atherosclerosis”: Atherosclerotic plaque”);
the CAD analysis system ing each 27 of characterizing plaque type, classify anatomical significance of a stenosis or determining the functional significance of a stenosis…classified28 by…luminal narrowing” [0015] 2nd S & [0099] last two Ss: fig. 1: “Atherosclerosis”) on the coronary artery (Fig. 1: “Normal coronary artery”) {{, and29 ingth S) each individual stenosis lesion}}30; and
the CAD analysis system comprising a user interface (“module 116” [0061]: fig. 3) that displays (via fig. 28:1202: “operator console and display”) a model (or as a model via an “image”31 [0079]: figs. 5,6) of (“ Superimposed on the rendered “ [0079] 2nd to last S) coronary arteries (fig. 5b:507) of a patient based on the patient CT scan data, the model (or as a model via an “image” [0079]: figs. 5,6) including a visualion32 (or likewise “[0079] The output (step 206 of FIG. 2) is a prediction of the coronary plaque type, and/or anatomical stenosis severity and/or the functional significance of lesion(s) within the coronary of interest. This result can be presented to the user in various ways. FIGS. 5a(i)-5a(v) and FIG. 5b shows some examples of the presentation of the results to the user.”) of each{{and a visual indication of each }} a {{and characterization}} (via said characterization “parameter along the axial trajectory within the VOI” [0066] last S: fig. 2:202: Extract coronary centerline”: fig. 4b:404:fig. 6:603) of each individual stenosis lesion based on the visual indication (via the display of disease via figures 5A,5B:
PNG
media_image12.png
1055
817
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
966
765
media_image13.png
Greyscale
);
{{wherein the characterisation (via said characterization “parameter along the axial trajectory within the VOI” [0066] last S: fig. 2:202: Extract coronary centerline”: fig. 4b:404:fig. 6:603) of the individual stenosis lesion includes a stenosis level33 (or “anatomical stenosis severity”34 [0077], penult S) for the individual stenosis lesion (“classified by…luminal narrowing” [0099] last two Ss: fig. 1: “Atherosclerosis”)}}35.
Re 2. (Original), Isgum discloses A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 1, {{wherein the characterisation also includes:
(A) an indication of vulnerable plaque presence and vulnerable plaque type;
(B)36 an indication of plaque presence (via “Positive37 remodeling refers to the outwards direction of atherosclerotic plaque growth.” [0093] 8th S) and plaque type (via “ the CAD related reference values may represent38 at least one of the plaque type” [0077] penult S);
© a lesion number; and/or
(D) an artery slice number}}39.
Re 4. (Previously Presented) Isgum discloses A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 1, {{wherein the stenosis level is visually communicated by displaying (via fig. 28:1202: “operator console and display”) a portion of a coronary artery associated with the individual stenosis lesion in a defined colour of a plurality of colours (via fig. 5(a):color-coded “labels” [0079] 6th S) of a stenosis level colour key40 (or “colour legend”41, Isgum: [0079] last S), the defined colour corresponding to the stenosis level of the lesion}}42.
Re 5. (Previously Presented/Amended)43, Isgum discloses A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
the visual indication of the individual stenosis lesion and the individual stenosis lesion characterisation (via said characterization “parameter along the axial trajectory within the VOI” [0066] last S: fig. 2:202: Extract coronary centerline”: fig. 4b:404:fig. 6:603) are displayed in response to user input (via “scan”44 “operator console input” [0157])
Re 12. (Previously Presented), Isgum discloses A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the user interface includes a multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) representation (fig. 4b:403) of at least a selected coronary artery (fig. 4a:402: “as an example to create an MPR image” [0075] 3rd S).
Re 35. (Previously Presented), Isgum discloses A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 1, 45.
Re 38. (Previously Presented), Isgum discloses A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 35,
Re 43. (Previously Presented), Isgum discloses A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 35,
Re 44. (Original), Isgum discloses A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 43,
Re 35. (Previously Presented), Isgum discloses, under a narrow subset of claim scope, A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 1,wherein the user interface is arranged to simultaneously display (or likewise “2701 shows the segmentation of the coronary circumflex in each…CCTA dataset” [0150] 4th & last Ss: Isgum: fig. 27:2701) multiple CT volume representations (2701) of a CT volume (via “a volume rendered CCTA image” [0088] penult S: fig. 8b:802) associated with the patient CT scan data (or CT scan body wave-information via “CT scan” “imaging” [0062], 1st S: fig. 2:201: “Obtain image dataset”), each CT volume representation (2701) taken along a plane (via an “axial trajectory” “three-dimensional (3D) multi-planar reformatted (MPR) image” [0066] 3rd S: fig. 4b:403; fig. 4c:405) extending through the CT volume at a different (slice” [0076] 2nd to las S) orientation46 (or likewise “rotated”-“orientation” [0076] 2nd to last S: fig. 4d,4e:407: rotated) , and the multiple displayed CT volume representations (2701) having a common CT volume location (“resulting from the 2D/3D registration”47, [0090] last S, in the role, status, function of common plates (prints) in photoengraving).
Re 43. (Previously Presented), Isgum discloses, under a narrow subset of claim scope, A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 35, wherein the user interface is arranged to display a vessel MPR representation (via “creating a three-dimensional (3D) multi-planer reformatted (MPR) image based on the volumetric image dataset and the axial trajectory of the VOI”, Isgum [0066] 3rd S) of a selected vessel (“in which the right coronary artery 402 is selected as an example to create an MPR image” Isgum: [0075] 3rd S) with the multiple CT volume representations of the CT volume, wherein the common CT volume location (“resulting from the 2D/3D registration”48, Isgum: [0090] last S, in the role, status, function of common plates (prints) in photoengraving: fig. 8: align dots 803,087 to dot 805) is a selected (“right coronary artery 402” “CCTA dataset (FIG. 2, 201)” Isgum [0075] 3rd S: fig. 4:402) location on the (right) vessel MPR (via “creating a three-dimensional (3D) multi-planer reformatted (MPR) image based on the volumetric image dataset and the axial trajectory of the VOI”, Isgum [0066] 3rd S: fig. 4b:403; fig. 4c:405).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 further in view of Markova et al. (US 2011/0158491 A1):
PNG
media_image14.png
798
382
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Re 13. (Previously Presented), Isgum of the combination of Isgum,Heigl teaches A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 12, wherein the model of coronary arteries includes a first vessel slice identifier arranged to indicate a selected slice of a coronary artery, the MPR representation includes a second vessel slice identifier arranged to indicate a selected slice of the selected coronary artery, and the first and second vessel slice identifiers are synchronised such that selection of a vessel slice (fig. 4b:404; fig. 4c:405) using one of the first and second vessel slice identifiers causes a corresponding vessel slice to be selected using the other of the first and second vessel slice identifiers.
Isgum of the combination of Isgum,Heigl does not teach the difference of claim 13 of:
a first vessel slice identifier …49a second vessel slice identifier…
the first and second vessel slice identifiers are synchronised such that selection of (a vessel slice)50 using one of the first and second vessel slice identifiers causes a corresponding vessel slice to be selected using the other of the first and second vessel slice identifiers.
Markova teaches the difference of clain 13 of:
a first vessel slice identifier (via “the system automatically identifies the corresponding slices of the other phases and replaces the slices currently displayed for these phases on a workstation” [0041]: figs.1,8: “segmentation”51) …
a second vessel slice identifier (via “the system automatically identifies the corresponding slices of the other phases and replaces the slices currently displayed for these phases on a workstation” [0041]: figs.1,9: “segmentation”)…
the first and second vessel slice (segmentation) identifiers are synchronized (“through all the phases at the same time” [0041]: fig. 4: corresponding selected slices) such that selection of (“in a certain phase” [0041]) (a vessel slice) … using one of the first and second vessel slice identifiers (figs.8,9: segmentation) causes a corresponding vessel slice (“of the other phases “ [0041]) to be selected (via “particular52… corresponding slices” [0041]) using the other of the first and second vessel slice (segmentation) identifiers.
Since Isgum of the combination of Isgum,Heigl teaches a vessel, one of skill in the art of vessels can make Isgum’s of the combination of Isgum,Heigl be as Markova’s seeing the change “enabling the radiologist to synchronously assess a lesion over all phases and across longitudinal studies, by suggesting delineations obtained via automatic segmentation techniques, which simultaneously exploit the information in all the phases, and by providing accurate 3D measurements, such as the volume of the liver and the individual lesions and its changes in time, the longest diameter in 3D, the liver segment where the lesions are situated etc.”, Markov [0057] penult S.
Claim(s) 17,19,21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 further in view of Markova et al. (US 2011/0158491 A1) as applied in claim 13 and Buckler et al. (US 2019/0159737 A1):
PNG
media_image15.png
795
491
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Claim 17 is rejected like claim 13 in view of Markova:
Re 17. (Previously Presented), Isgum of the combination teaches A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 1,wherein the user interface further includes an axial slice representation (via an “axial trajectory” “three-dimensional (3S) multi-planar reformatted (MPR) image” [0066] 3rd S: fig. 4b:403; fig. 4c:405) of a selected coronary artery (fig. 4a:402: “as an example to create an MPR image” [0075] 3rd S: fig. 4b:403; fig. 4c:405) at a selected coronary artery (fig. 1: “Normal coronary artery”) slice and the axial slice (MPR) representation includes inner and outer vessel wall (or “both the outer wall of the vessel as well as the lumen”, [0093] 10th S, as shown in fig. 1) annotations53 (“of different types of coronary plaque such as no-plaque, calcified plaque, non-calcified plaque or mixed plaque” [0081]: fig. 5a(i)(ii)iii): “no-plaque”: since “annotations” is further modified by “inner and outer vessel wall”, Isgum of the combination of Isgum,Heigl does not teach “annotations”).
Isgum of the combination does not teach the difference of claim 17 of:
A) a selected…slice…
B) annotations54.
Markova teaches/makes obvious difference A) in the rejection of claim 13.
Buckler teach the difference B) of claim 17 of:
annotations55 (“inner lumen…and…outer wall” “annotated analyte regions” [0078] 3rd to last S).
Isgum of the combination of Isgum,,Markov teaches neural network annotations, one of skill in the art of neural net annotations can make Isgum’s of the combination of Isgum,,Markov be as Buckler’s seeing the in the change that “radiology datasets annotated to include ex vivo ground truth data (such as histology information) may be advantageously used as input data for the classifier.”, Buckler [0076] penult S.
Re 19. (Previously Presented), Isgum of the combination of Isgum,Markova, Buckler teaches A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 17,wherein, for the axial slice representation, the user interface further includes stenosis lesion (“classified by…luminal narrowing” [0099] last two Ss: fig. 1: “Atherosclerosis”) specific information (via “myocardial ischemia”-“patient specific CCTA datasets” [0129] 2nd to last S) for the stenosis lesion (“classified by…luminal narrowing” [0099] last two Ss: fig. 1: “Atherosclerosis”) with which the selected slice (via the combination of Markova) is associated (via the combination)2 the lesion (“classified by…luminal narrowing” [0099] last two Ss: fig. 1: “Atherosclerosis”) specific information (via “myocardial ischemia”-“patient specific CCTA datasets” [0129] 2nd to last S) associated (via the combination) with the selected slice (via the combination of Markova) including:
A) a stenosis level (or “anatomical stenosis severity”56 [0077], penult S) of the stenosis lesion (“classified by…luminal narrowing” [0099] last two Ss: fig. 1: “Atherosclerosis”) with which the selected slice (via the combination of Markova) is associated (via the combination);
B) plaque type information (via “plaque type” “output units” [0099] 4th to last S) for plaque present on the stenosis lesion with which the selected slice (via the combination of Markova) is associated (via the combination); and/or
C) vulnerable plaque type information for vulnerable plaque present on the stenosis lesion (“classified by…luminal narrowing” [0099] last two Ss: fig. 1: “Atherosclerosis”) with which the selected slice (via the combination of Markova) is associated (via the combination).
Re 21. (Previously Presented), Isgum of the combination of Isgum,Markova, Buckler teaches A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 19,wherein the user interface includes a multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) representation of at least a selected coronary artery, and wherein the stenosis level (or “anatomical stenosis severity”57, Isgum [0077], penult S) of the stenosis lesion (“classified by…luminal narrowing”, Isgum: [0099] last two Ss: fig. 1: “Atherosclerosis”) with which the selected slice (via the combination of Markova) is associated (via the combination) is communicated by displaying a portion of the MPR representation (Isgum: fig. 5(a)(i)(ii)(iii)) corresponding to the stenosis lesion using a colour (or “colour legend”58, Isgum [0079] last S) used to display the stenosis lesion on the model of the coronary arteries59, Isgum [0077], penult S) using the colour (or “colour legend”60, Isgum [0079] last S) used to display the stenosis lesion (“classified by…luminal narrowing”, Isgum: [0099] last two Ss: fig. 1: “Atherosclerosis”) on the model of the coronary arteries, and/or by displaying at least a portion of the selected slice (Isgum: fig. 5(a)(i)(ii)(iii)) using the colour (or “colour legend”61, Isgum [0079] last S) used to display the stenosis lesion on the model of the coronary arteries.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) in view of as applied in claims 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43, 44 further in view of Itu et al. (US 2019/0336096 A1):
PNG
media_image16.png
795
491
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Re 26. (Previously Presented), Isgum of the combination of Isgum, teaches A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 1,wherein the user interface is arranged to display a coronary artery centreline (fig. 4d:407), the path of the centreline,62 being editable by a user.
Isgum of the combination of Isgum, does not teach the difference of claim 26 of:
(the user interface is arranged to display a coronary artery centreline, the path of the centreline,63 ) being editable.
Itu teaches the difference:
being editable (via “centerlines…can…be…edited” [0028] 3rd S).
Since Isgum of the combination of Isgum, teaches a centerline, one of skill in the art of centerlines can make Isgum’s of the combination of Isgum, be as Itu’s seeing the change “provide an improvement to existing methods for computer-based non-invasive computation of hemodynamic indices, such as FFR, that ensures fast and accurate computation of medical image (e.g., CT) based hemodynamic indices.”, Itu [0030] 1st S.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 further in view of Itu et al. (US 2019/0336096 A1) as applied in claim 26 further in view of Grady et al. (US 2015/0089337 A1):
PNG
media_image17.png
795
491
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Re 28. (Previously Presented), Isgum of the combination of Isgum,,Itu teaches A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 26, wherein the user interface is arranged to enable a user to add (“new branches or remove branches (e.g., veins identified as arteries)”, Itu [0030] 5th S) a new centreline (since Itu teaches adding new branches correcting a centerline, Itu does not teach “a new centerline”) associated with a coronary artery.
Isgum of the combination of Isgum,,Itu does not teach the difference of claim 29 of “a new centreline”.
Grady teaches the difference of claim 28:
(“update a centerline label with” [0177]) a new centreline.
Since Isgum of the combination of Isgum,Itu teaches a centerline, one of skill in the art of centerlines can make Isgum’s of the combination of Isgum,,Itu be as Grady’s seeing the change more accurate (updated) centerlines.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 further in view of ROTMAN (WO 2011/148340 A1) with SEARCH machine translation:
PNG
media_image18.png
795
491
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Re 29. (Previously Presented), Isgum, teaches A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 1,wherein the user interface is arranged to display representations (via figures 4,5,6) of calcified volumes (via “calcified plaque” “MPR image” [0079] 5th S) on the model of coronary arteries in response to user input (via “scan”64 “operator console input” [0157]) {{, and65 to display (“output” [0079] 1st S) information indicative of locations (“along the length of the coronary of interest which corresponds to the x-axis of the MPR image 501” [0079] 6th S) of vulnerable plaque on the (image) model of coronary arteries in response to user input}}66 (via “scan”67 “operator console input” [0157]).
Isgum does not teach, under “a narrow subset of claim scope”68, the difference of claim 29:
vulnerable (plaque).
ROTMAN teaches the difference (“identifying”, pg. 12, 9th txt blk ) vulnerable (plaque)).
Since Isgum of the combination of Isgum, teaches plaque, one of skill in plaque can make Isgum’s of the combination of Isgum, be as ROTMAN’s seeing in the change “appropriate treatment prior to rupture, to prevent such events from occurring”, pg. 14, 1st txt blk.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 in view of WASHBURN et al. (DE 102008013719 A1) with SEARCH machine translation:
PNG
media_image19.png
795
491
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Re 38. (Previously Presented), Isgum teaches, under a narrow subset of claim scope, A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 35, wherein the interface is arranged to display (via “ a display screen for visual output” [0064]) plane indicia on a CT volume representation (comprised by a “contrast enhanced volumetric dataset” [0057] 1st S), the plane indicia indicative of a plane (via “creating a three-dimensional (3D) multi-planer reformatted (MPR) image based on the corresponding volumetric image dataset and the axial trajectory of the VO” [0016]) associated with another CT volume representation (comprised by a “contrast enhanced volumetric dataset” [0057] 1st S), and to enable a user (via “ user interface module 116” [0061]) to interact with the plane indicia to modify the plane (via “creating a three-dimensional (3D) multi-planer reformatted (MPR) image based on the corresponding volumetric image dataset and the axial trajectory of the VO” [0016]) associated with the other CT volume representation (comprised by a “contrast enhanced volumetric dataset” [0057] 1st S) and thereby the displayed other CT volume representation (comprised by a “contrast enhanced volumetric dataset” [0057] 1st S).
Isgum does not teach, under a narrow subset of claim scope, the difference of claim 38 of:
plane indicia…
the plane indicia…
the plane indicia to modify (the plane).
WASHBURN teaches, under the narrow subset of claim scope, the difference of claim 38:
(“display only the in-plane”) plane indicia (“without losing the positional data associated with the previously identified structures”, pg. 5, 5th txt blk) …
the plane indicia (or “the in-plane indicia”-:”markings”, pg. 5, 5th txt blk: fig. 4:”186”:, pg. 6 ,last txt blk)…
the plane indicia (fig. 4:186) to modify (resulting in “plane” “displayed, modified” “data”, pg. 9, penult para) (the plane).
Since Isgum teaches a display and registration, one of skill in the art of displays and registration can make Isgum’s of the combination of Isgum,, FIESELMANN be as WASHBURN’s seeing in the change an “updated” “volume” “such as MR,PET,CT”, WASHBURN, pg. 15, 2nd txt blk.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 further in view of MINE et al. (US 2018/0092628 A1):
PNG
media_image20.png
795
491
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Re 44. (Original), Isgum teaches, under a narrow subset of claim scope, A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 43, wherein the user interface (“user interface module 116” Isgum: [0061]: fig. 3) is arranged
to enable a user to move the selected (“right coronary artery 402” Isgum [0075] 3rd S) location (since Isgum only teaches a selected right-side artery, Isgum does not teach the claimed “move the…location”) on the vessel MPR (via “creating a three-dimensional (3D) multi-planer reformatted (MPR) image based on the volumetric image dataset and the axial trajectory of the VOI”, Isgum [0066] 3rd S), and
to change6970 the multiple displayed CT volume representations (Isgum: fig. 27:2701) of the CT volume (via “a volume rendered CCTA image” [0088] penult S: fig. 8b:802) in synchronisation with the selected (“right coronary artery 402” Isgum [0075] 3rd S) location on the vessel MPR (via “creating a three-dimensional (3D) multi-planer reformatted (MPR) image based on the volumetric image dataset and the axial trajectory of the VOI”, Isgum [0066] 3rd S) so that the common CT location (“resulting from the 2D/3D registration”71, [0090] last S, in the role, status, function of common plates (prints) in photoengraving: said alignments dots of fig. 8) changes in accordance with the moved location on the vessel MPR (via “creating a three-dimensional (3D) multi-planer reformatted (MPR) image based on the volumetric image dataset and the axial trajectory of the VOI”, Isgum [0066] 3rd S).
Isgum does not teach, under the narrow subset of claim scope, the difference of claim 44 of:
move the (selected) location…
to change7273…in synchronization…
(the common CT location) changes in accordance with the moved location.
MINE teaches , under the narrow subset of claim scope, the difference of claim 44:
move the (selected) location (via “rotational movements and translational movements” [0104] 2nd S: fig. 4:S401: “Coordinate conversion”)…
to change747576 (via “completion of the image alignment” [0081]:”[0009] FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating an image alignment process.”: in the past)…in synchronization (i.e., “in an interlocking manner” [0081])…
(the common CT location) changes (“the positions and directions of the images, for example, by the operation panel” [0122] 2nd S) in accordance with the moved location (via “aligned in step S308 of FIG. 7” [0122] 1st S).
Since Isgum teaches registration, one of skill in the art of registration can make Isgum’s be as MINE’s seeing in the change “corresponding cross sections of the highly precisely aligned MR image and real-time ultrasonic image can be interlock-displayed (also referred to as “synchronous display”).” MINE [0153] 3rd S.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 further in view of Mintz et al. (US 2017/0084027 A1):
PNG
media_image21.png
795
491
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Re 45. (Previously Presented), Isgum teaches A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the CAD analysis system is arranged to enable a user (via “ [0064] The user interface module 116 interacts with the user” [0064]) to (A) modify and/or (B) add to displayed77 (&) CAD78 analysis79 information (comprised by “myocardium”-“data segment”-“analysis” Isgum:[0105] last three Ss & [0065] 2nd S), and in response the analysis device is arranged to reanalyse the patient80 (&) CT81 scan82 data (or CT scan body wave-information via “CT scan” “imaging”83 [0062], 1st S: fig. 2:201: “Obtain image dataset”) in consideration of the modification and/or addition.
Isgum does not teach the difference of claim 45 of:
modify and/or add to (displayed analysis information) (a Markush element)…
reanalyse (the patient (&) CT scan data) in consideration of the modification and/or addition.
Mintz teaches the difference of claim 45:
modify and/or add to (resulting in “additional data points 803” [0088] 3rd S: figs. 8A,8B,8C,8D and “combined” “3D model”: fig. 14A: “Generate 3D model”: fig. 14B:1440: fig. 14C:1460) (displayed analysis information) (a Markush element)…
reanalyse (“In actual surgical operation” [0015] last S) (the patient (&) CT scan data) in consideration of the modification and/or addition (resulting in “additional data points 803” [0088] 3rd S: figs. 8A,8B,8C,8D and “combined” “3D model”: fig. 14A: “Generate 3D model”: fig. 14B:1440: fig. 14C:1460).
Since Isgum of the combination of Isgum teaches a “wire”, Isgum:
[0006] Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) has been used increasingly over the last 10-15 years as a method to identify and effectively target the coronary lesion most likely to benefit from PCI. FFR is a technique used to measure pressure differences across a coronary artery stenosis to determine the likelihood that the stenosis impedes oxygen delivery to the heart muscle. The technique involves percutaneously inserting a pressure-transducing wire inside the coronary artery and measuring the pressure behind (distal to) and before (proximal to) the lesion and is performed in the catheterization laboratory.
one of skill in the art of wires can make Isgum’s of the combination of Isguml be as Mintz’s (fig. 1A) seeing the change “more convenient operations by the physician”, Mintz [0015] last S.
Claim(s) 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 further in view of Heigl et al. (US 2004/0210403 A1):
PNG
media_image22.png
795
491
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Re 59. (New), Isgum teaches A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the CAD analysis system is arranged to identify a start location and an end location of the individual stenosis lesion on the coronary artery (or likewise “The proximal part which is at the start of the centerline which identifies the coronary of interest is at the left side of image 1901 and the end of centerline is at the right side of the MPR image.” [0124] 5th S) by identifying start84 and end85 slices (or likewise “ Image 403 of FIG. 4b illustrates the cuboid resampled image (straight MPR) and one ‘slice’ is visualized within the cuboid resampled image for easy interpretation. Image 405 of FIG. 4c shows a one ‘slice’ of the same resampled image, but the visualization plane is rotated around the centerline 404, to illustrate the visualization of the coronary bifurcation (406) within the extracted right coronary artery. A curved MPR image is reconstructed along the curved course of the coronary centerline. Images 408a and 408b of FIGS. 4d and 4e shows two examples of a curved MPR image and visualized as a single ‘slice’, in which the slice orientation refers to a curved plane which can be rotated along the curved coronary artery.” [0076] 2nd & 3rd Ss) of the individual stenosis lesion, and the CAD analysis system arranged to categorise all slices between the start and end slices as belonging to the individual stenosis lesion (via figure 4 showing four slices 403,405,408 (fig. 4d), and 408 (fig. 4e):
PNG
media_image23.png
1023
829
media_image23.png
Greyscale
Isgum does not teach the difference of claim 59 of:
start86 and end87 (slices)88…89
the start and end (slices).
Heigl teach the difference of claim 59 of:
start90 and end91 (slices)92…93
the start and end (slices) (or likewise: “ [0045] As shown in FIG. 8, the user 10 first prescribes a starting point 28 and an ending point 29 for the computer.” via fig. 8:
PNG
media_image9.png
907
1072
media_image9.png
Greyscale
).
Since Isgum suggests possibilities for looking at images via Isgum [0079]:
[0079] The output (step 206 of FIG. 2) is a prediction of the coronary plaque type, and/or anatomical stenosis severity and/or the functional significance of lesion(s) within the coronary of interest. This result can be presented to the user in various ways. FIGS. 5a(i)-5a(v) and FIG. 5b shows some examples of the presentation of the results to the user. Image 501 of FIG. 5a(i) represents the MPR image as a result of step 203 of FIG. 2. Image 502 of FIG. 5a(ii) shows the plaque type classification as a color or grey value superimposed on the MPR image, in which the colors represent different plaque types (e.g. no-plaque, calcified plaque, non-calcified plaque or mixed plaque). Image 503 of FIG. 5a(iii) shows the anatomical stenosis severity superimposed as a color or grey value on the MPR image, in which the colors represent different labels of anatomical stenosis severity. Within Image 503, three anatomical stenosis severity classes are visualized, no-stenosis, non-anatomical significant stenosis (with <50% luminal narrowing) or anatomical significant stenosis (with ≥50% luminal narrowing). Image 504 of FIG. 5a(iv) shows the FFR value along the MPR image, in which the y-axis represents the estimated FFR value and the x-axis the location along the length of the coronary of interest which corresponds to the x-axis of the MPR image 501. Various other ways of visualization can be used, for instance the results can be superimposed on the curved MPR, on the orthogonal views or the results can be visualized on the volumetric rendering of the image dataset (201 of FIG. 2) as shown by image 505 of FIG. 5a(v) in which 506 illustrates a color-coded result of for instance the FFR value along the coronary centerline. Note that in Image 505, the coronary centerlines 506 are visualized to appeal the coronary lumen by using volume rendering techniques. FIG. 5b shows another example of visualization the results. Image 507 is a volumetric rendering of only the coronary arteries including a small part the ascending aorta in which the left and right coronary artery emanate from the aorta. Superimposed on the rendered coronary arteries within 507, a color or grey value is visualized (509) which represents for instance the numerical FFR value and 508 provides the color legend to map the color or grey value to a (numerical) value. Another visualization approach is presented by FIG. 6. In this figure the results are shown within a simulated angio view. A simulated angio view is an image which mimics an x-ray angiographic image of the coronaries as view by a particular angulation of the c-arm, as for instance disclosed by U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,008,386B2 and 10,192,352B2. Image 601 of FIG. 6 shows such a simulated angio view in which the angulation (602, rotation angle of the c-arm and angulation rotation angle of the c-arm) can be controlled by the user. 603 shows the extracted centerline as a result of step 202 of FIG. 2, on which the color or grey value represent for instance the FFR value and 604 provides the color legend to map the color or grey value to a (numerical) value.
one of skill in the art of viewing images could or would have done is refer to others as visualizations and thus make Isgum’s be as Hiegl’s seeing in the change goodness via Hiegl:
[0011] In a further embodiment, the computer determines a perspective projection of the volume dataset proceeding from a projection center into an image plane and displays it on a viewing device. This allows a user to comprehend the connotational content of the volume dataset especially simply and intuitively.
via explicit, creative, routine, inferential Supreme court steps A,B,C:
A) Get Hiegl computer system as “programmed”, Hiegl [0030] 1st S:
PNG
media_image24.png
573
970
media_image24.png
Greyscale
A1) run the program 9 in Hiegl’s programed computer system;
B) take the image output of Isgum’s fig. 2:206: “Provide output” and input to Heigl’s programmed computer system at Hiegl’s fig. 1:1: “Data Memory”:
PNG
media_image25.png
1146
682
media_image25.png
Greyscale
;
C) see what happens (I foresee: [0011] In a further embodiment, the computer determines a perspective projection of the volume dataset 206 proceeding from a projection center into an image plane and displays it on a viewing device. This allows a user to comprehend the connotational content of the volume dataset 206 especially simply and intuitively.
Claim(s) 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isgum et al. (US 2019/0318476 A1) as applied in claims 1,2,4,5,12,35,38,43,44 in view of Gulsun et al. (US 2022/0287668 A1):
PNG
media_image26.png
795
491
media_image26.png
Greyscale
Re 60. (New), Isgum teaches A CAD analysis system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the CAD analysis device comprises a vessel wall segmenter (or likewise “a proprietary algorithm which incorporates…segmentation” [0150] 2nd & 4th Ss) that uses a trained {{volumetric convolutional}}94 neural network (CNN) (or likewise “[0096] In step 709 of FIG. 7… train…The … recurrent convolutional neural network (RCNN) which is employed to analyze a sequence of cubes (step 707), representing the vicinity along the extracted centerline in an MPR image.”) to produce inner and95 outer vessel wall lumen (or likewise “in early atherosclerosis the first arterial changes include of compensatory enlargement of both the outer wall of the vessel as well as the lumen, termed compensatory enlargement or positive remodeling” [0093]) 10th S) masks, and the inner and outer vessel wall lumen masks are used to identify the at least one individual stenosis lesion based on analysis (or said likewise “classified96 by…luminal narrowing” [0099] last two Ss: fig. 1: “Atherosclerosis”: fig. 2: 206: “Provide output”) of gap regions (or “gap”-“points”97 [0046]) between the inner and98 outer vessel walls.
Isgum does not teach the difference of claim 60 of:
produce (inner and outer vessel wall lumen)99 masks…100masks are used.
Gulsun teach the difference of claim 60 of:
produce (inner and outer vessel wall lumen)101 masks…102masks are used (or likewise “Decoder 410 of the machine learning based model decodes latent representation 408 for performing a segmentation of lumen from input training medical images 402 to generate lumen mask 412, as well as for performing other vessel assessment tasks (not shown in framework 400).” [0042] 6th S via fig. 4:
PNG
media_image10.png
636
1054
media_image10.png
Greyscale
).
Since Isgum teaches segmentation with problems thereof via:
[0007] Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) is a well-established modality for identification, as well as for exclusion, of patients with suspected CAD. It allows for noninvasive detection and characterization of coronary artery plaque and grading of coronary artery stenosis. Today, these tasks are typically performed in the clinic by visual assessment, or semi-automatically by first utilizing lumen and arterial wall segmentation and thereafter, defining the presence of plaque or stenosis. However, the former suffers from substantial interobserver variability, even when performed by experienced experts, while the latter is dependent on coronary artery lumen and wall segmentation which is typically time-consuming and cumbersome, especially in images with extensive atherosclerotic plaque or imaging artefacts.
one of skill in the art could or would have done is refer to other known segmentations as the solution and thus make Isgum’s be as Gulson’s seeing in the change goodness via Gulson’s teaching of optimizing segmentation via a simplified neural network:
[0043] FIG. 5 shows a workflow 500 for training one or more machine learning based models for stenosis grading, in accordance with one or more embodiments. Workflow 500 may correspond to framework 400 of FIG. 4. For example, AI network 504 for performing an imaging task may be the machine learning based model comprising encoder 406 and decoder 410 in FIG. 4 and AI network 508 for performing a clinical task may perform AI based stenosis grading 414 in FIG. 4. As shown in workflow 500, AI network 504 receives as input one or more cross-sectional images 502 of a vessel and segments lumen from cross-sectional images 502 as lumen mask 506. AI network 508 receives as input lumen mask 506 and generates stenosis grade 510 of the vessel. AI network 504 and AI network 508 are trained in order to optimize a weighted combination of lumen segmentation and stenosis grading. AI network 508 may be trained on synthetically generated lumen masks with known ground truth stenosis grades. The synthetically generated lumen masks may be generated in accordance with FIG. 6. In one embodiment, workflow 500 may be modified to learn the stenosis grading and reference diameter prediction from synthetically generated diameters.
[0074] The advantage of using a pooling layer 1006 is that the number of nodes 1014, 1016 and the number of parameters is reduced. This leads to the amount of computation in the network being reduced and to a control of overfitting.
via explicit, creative, routine, inferential Supreme court steps via A,B,C:
A) create a coronary parameters program based on Isgum’s fig. 2:
A1) at step 202 create code calling a segmentation program(s);
A2) at step 202 create code returning back to 202 at the end of the segmentation program(s):
PNG
media_image27.png
930
724
media_image27.png
Greyscale
B) create an encoder-decoder training segmentation program based on Gulson’s fig. 4:
PNG
media_image28.png
634
1043
media_image28.png
Greyscale
C) create a segmentation program via Isgum’s “proprietary” stereo-“reconstruction” (fig. 27:bottom-right corner) “segmentation” (fig. 27:2701: stereo-images) “algorithm” [0150] resulting in the interface of Isgum’s fig. 27:
[0150] The vFFR method of CAAS Workstation generates a 3D coronary reconstruction using 2 angiographic x-ray projections with at least 30 degrees apart. vFFR is calculated instantaneously by utilizing a proprietary algorithm which incorporates the morphology of the 3D coronary reconstruction and routinely measured patient specific aortic pressure. FIG. 27 shows an example of obtaining a computed FFR pullback of the coronary circumflex by using CAAS Workstation. 2701 shows the segmentation of the coronary circumflex in each 2D X-ray angiographic image, resulting in a 3D reconstruction of the coronary artery (2702). The graph 2703 shows the computed vFFR value along the length of the 3D reconstructed coronary artery. The same approach could also be performed on the CCTA dataset, eliminating the need to corresponding x-ray angiographic image data for each patient.
PNG
media_image29.png
784
820
media_image29.png
Greyscale
C1) write code in Isgum’s “proprietary” “segmentation” “reconstrunction” “algorithm” [0150] sub-calling Gulson’s training encoder-decoder segmentation program:
D) Run Isgum’s coronary parameters program calling the segmentation programs:
B1) input Isgum’s “items…, a volumetric image, a reference value, features and/or other things used during the training phase”, Isgum [0053] 1st S, to the training encoder-decoder program to be segmented (i.e., masked);
B2) train the image reconstruction encoder-decoder;
B3) reconstruct arteries based on the trained encoder-decoder
E) get FFR (Fractional Flow Reserve) parameters from the image reconstruction; and
E) see what happens (I foresee:
--AI network 504 and AI network 508 are trained in order to optimize a weighted combination of lumen segmentation and stenosis grading… and the number of parameters is reduced. This leads to the amount of FFR computation in the network being reduced and to a control of overfitting.--).
Conclusion
The prior art “nearest to the subject matter defined in the claims” (MPEP 707.05) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action:
Citation
Relevance
IDS cited MIN et al. (US 2021/0209757 A1): a number “1.” reference.
MIN teaches “each lesion” in fig. 7M: lesion markers “R1” via [0366]:
PNG
media_image30.png
765
723
media_image30.png
Greyscale
“[0366] If more than one lesion is marked by the user, the user can click through each lesion's details. To view the statistics for each vessel, the users can toggle between vessels on the vessel panel illustrated in FIG. 7AK.”
as the closest to the claimed “each individual stenosis lesion” of claim 1.
Vaillant et al. (US 2021/0282731 A1)
Vailant teaches “each stenosis or coronary lesion”: [0065] and fig. 5:
PNG
media_image31.png
1062
1145
media_image31.png
Greyscale
[0065] At 340, method 300 may include reconstructing and displaying a second image of the coronary tree based on the one or more angiographic projections registered to the CT imaging data. Accordingly, the second image may include the one or more angiographic projections “spliced” into reconstructed 2D projections of the (3D) CT imaging data (as described in detail below with reference to FIG. 5). In some embodiments, the reconstructed second image may be an image viewable by the user of the medical imaging system (e.g., 200) upon display at the display device (e.g., 232). Accordingly, the user may manipulate the second image (e.g., alter a magnification thereof, move within the second image, obtain alternate views, etc.) via the user interface (e.g., 234) including the display device. In such embodiments, one or more visual indicators may be generated on the second image for each stenosis or coronary lesion in the one or more coronary arteries of interest. As such, the user may easily locate a particular stenosis or coronary lesion depicted by the second image.
as the closest to the claimed “each individual stenosis lesion” of claim 1.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DENNIS ROSARIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/DENNIS ROSARIO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
1 MPEP 2131 Anticipation — Application of 35 U.S.C. 102 [R-08.2017], 2nd para, 2nd to last S: The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
2 MPEP 2131 Anticipation — Application of 35 U.S.C. 102 [R-08.2017], 2nd para, 2nd to last S: The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
3 35 USC 112 Specification: (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification (AUSTRALIA 2021902323 07/28/2021 & AUSTRAILIA 2021221669 08/25/2021) shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
4 MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field [R-07.2022], 4th para, 4th S: ”The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification).”, wherein under is defined: in accordance with, wherein accordance is defined: the act of according or granting, wherein accord is defined: to be in agreement or harmony; agree, wherein agree is defined: Grammar. to correspond in inflectional form, as in number, case, gender, or person; to show agreement. In The boy runs, boy is a singular noun and runs agrees with it in number, where agreement is defined: Grammar. correspondence in number, case, gender, person, or some other formal category between syntactically connected words, especially between one or more subordinate words and the word or words upon which they depend; selection by one word of the matching formal subclass, or category, in another word syntactically construed with the first., wherein category is defined: Grammar. part of speech.(Dictionary.com)
5 MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 2nd para, 4th S: “Thus, the relevant prior art was improperly limited to a narrow subset of claim scope.”
6 and: (used to connect alternatives). (Dictionary.com)
7 Regarding “model” via applicant’s disclosure, last S: “Modifications and variations as would be apparent to a skilled addressee are deemed to be within the scope of the present invention.”. Thus “model” can be a relation/formula/equation/representation/math (Dictionary.com)
8 {{squiggles}} represent alternative-AND language under full claim scope of the broadest reasonable interpretation
9 MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-07.2022]
III. MENTAL PROCESSES
A. A Claim With Limitation(s) That Cannot Practically be Performed in the Human Mind Does Not Recite a Mental Process, last para:
In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
10 MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field in Step 2A Prong Two [R-10.2019], 2nd para:
The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").
11 adjective
12 adjective
13 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
14 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught
15 MPEP 2131 Anticipation — Application of 35 U.S.C. 102 [R-08.2017], 2nd para, 2nd to last S: The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
16 MPEP 2131 Anticipation — Application of 35 U.S.C. 102 [R-08.2017], 2nd para, 2nd to last S: The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
17 The broadest reasonable interpretation in claim 1 is significantly shifted away from previous limitations (such as claim 1’s second limitation: “the CAD analysis system ing…” that requires two or more stenosis lesions) due to the claimed “each individual stenosis lesion” (i.e., “each” means two or more: Dictionary.com) which is a narrow subset of claim scope relative to the claimed “at least one individual stenosis lesion”.
18 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: -ing (of “comprising”): a suffix of nouns formed from verbs, expressing the action of the verb or its result, product, material, etc. (the art of building; a new building; cotton wadding ), wherein etc. is defined: and others; and so forth; and so on (used to indicate that more of the same sort or class might have been mentioned, but for brevity have been omitted), wherein so is defined: likewise or correspondingly; also; too. (Dictionary.com)
19 “received” is coordinating adjective modifying “data”
20 “patient” is a coordinating adjective modifying “data”
21 “CT” is cumulative adjective modifying “scan”
22 “scan” is coordinating adjective modifying “data”
23 imaging: Medicine/Medical. the use of computerized axial tomography, sonography, or other specialized techniques and instruments to obtain pictures of the interior of the body, especially those including soft tissues, wherein tomography is defined: A procedure by which waves are sent through an object and computers produce images of cross sections of the object by using information on how the waves are changed. Both ultrasound and CAT scans are medical uses of this technique, but it is also widely used in science and industry. (Dictionary.com)
24 stenosis: a narrowing or stricture of a passage or vessel. (Dictioanry.com)
25 lesion: any structural change in a bodily part resulting from injury or disease (Dictionary.com)
26 and: (used to connect alternatives) (Dictionary.com)
27 one: being or amounting to a single unit or individual or entire thing, item, or object rather than two or more; a single, wherein a is defined: any; a single, wherein any is defined: every; all, wherein every is defined: being one of a group or series taken collectively; each. (Dictionary.com)
28 classify: to arrange or organize by classes; order according to class, wherein class is defined: a number of persons or things regarded as forming a group by reason of common attributes, characteristics, qualities, or traits; kind; sort, where regard is defined: to look at; observe, where observe is defined: to see, watch, perceive, or notice, wherein perceive is defined: to recognize, discern, envision, or understand: wherein recognize is defined: to identify from knowledge of appearance or characteristics. (Dictionary.com)
29 and: (used to connect alternatives) (Dictionary.com)
30 text in {{squiggly brackets}} in claims 1,2,4 “does not limit the scope of a claim” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para:
As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms (“and” & “at least one”) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“and” “at least one”) that suggests or makes a feature or step (in claims 1,2,4) optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
31 image: a physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible, wherein representation is defined: the state of being represented., wherein represent is defined: to portray or depict; present the likeness of, as a picture does, wherein likeness is defined: the semblance or appearance of something; guise, wherein semblance is defined: a likeness, image, or copy, wherein copy is defined: an imitation, reproduction, or transcript of an original, wherein imitation is defined: a result or product of imitating, wherein imitate is defined: to follow or endeavor to follow as a model or example. (Dictionary.com) .
32 indication: Medicine/Medical. a special symptom or the like that points out a suitable remedy or treatment or shows the presence of a disease. (Dictionary.com)
33 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: level: an extent, measure, or degree of intensity, achievement, etc.. (Dictionary.com)
34 severity: intensity or sharpness, as of cold or pain, wherein intensity is defined: the degree or extent to which something is intense. (Dictionary.com)
35 text in {{squiggly brackets}} in claims 1,2,4 “does not limit the scope of a claim” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para:
As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms (“and”) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“and”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional (in claims 1,2,4) but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
36 since (B) is taught (A)(B)(C)(D) is taught under the broadest reasonable interpretation of Markush claim 2
37 positive: Medicine/Medical. (of blood, affected tissue, etc.) indicating the presence of a specified medical condition or substance. (Dictionary.com)
38 represent: to serve to express, designate, stand for, or denote, as a word, symbol, or the like does; symbolize, wherein designate is defined: to mark or point out; indicate; show; specify. (Dictionary.com)
39 text in {{squiggly brackets}} in claims 1,2,4 “does not limit the scope of a claim” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para:
As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms (“and”) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“and”) that suggests or makes a feature or step (in claims 1,2,4) optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
40 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: a systematic explanation of abbreviations, symbols, etc., used in a dictionary, map, etc.. (Dictionary.com)
41 legend: a table on a map, chart, or the like, listing and explaining the symbols used. (Dictionary.com)
42 text in {{squiggly brackets}} in claims 1,2,4 “does not limit the scope of a claim” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para:
As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms (“and”) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“and”) that suggests or makes a feature or step (in claims 1,2,4) optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
43 see above withdrawn claim objection of claim 5
44 scan: Medicine/Medical, Biology.
A. examination of the body or an organ or part, or a biologically active material, by means of a technique such as computed axial tomography, nuclear magnetic resonance, ultrasonography, or scintigraphy.
B. the image or display so obtained.
45 The crossed text (n claims 35,38,43,44) is not “a limitation in a claim… where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps” via MPEP 2111.04 "Adapted to," "Adapted for," "Wherein," "Whereby," and Contingent Clauses [R-10.2019]
I. "ADAPTED TO," "ADAPTED FOR," "WHEREIN," and "WHEREBY"
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses;
(B) "wherein" clauses; and
(C) "whereby" clauses.
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps").
46 “orientation” is further limited by “different”
47 registration: the group or number registered, wherein register is defined: to enter or cause to be entered formally in a register, wherein register is defined: Photography. proper relationship between two plane surfaces in photography, as corresponding plates in photoengraving, wherein as is defined: in the role, function, or status of, wherein corresponding is defined: identical in all essentials or respects, wherein identical is defined: similar or alike in every way, wherein similar is defined: having a likeness or resemblance, especially in a general way, wherein general is defined: of, relating to, or true of such persons or things in the main, with possible exceptions; common to most; prevalent; usual.,
wherein photoengraving is defined:
A. a photographic process of preparing printing plates for letterpress printing.
B. a plate so produced.
C. a print made from it,
wherein print is defined: Computers. to produce (data) in legible alphanumeric or graphic form, wherein graphic is defined: giving a clear and effective picture; vivid., wherein picture is defined: a visual representation of a person, object, or scene, as a painting, drawing, photograph, etc.., wherein photograph is defined: a picture produced by photography, wherein photography is defined: the process or art of producing images of objects on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light or of other forms of radiant energy, as x-rays, gamma rays, or cosmic rays. (Dictionary.com)
48 registration: the group or number registered, wherein register is defined: to enter or cause to be entered formally in a register, wherein register is defined: Photography. proper relationship between two plane surfaces in photography, as corresponding plates in photoengraving, wherein as is defined: in the role, function, or status of, wherein corresponding is defined: identical in all essentials or respects, wherein identical is defined: similar or alike in every way, wherein similar is defined: having a likeness or resemblance, especially in a general way, wherein general is defined: of, relating to, or true of such persons or things in the main, with possible exceptions; common to most; prevalent; usual.,
wherein photoengraving is defined:
A. a photographic process of preparing printing plates for letterpress printing.
B. a plate so produced.
C. a print made from it,
wherein print is defined: Computers. to produce (data) in legible alphanumeric or graphic form, wherein graphic is defined: giving a clear and effective picture; vivid., wherein picture is defined: a visual representation of a person, object, or scene, as a painting, drawing, photograph, etc.., wherein photograph is defined: a picture produced by photography, wherein photography is defined: the process or art of producing images of objects on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light or of other forms of radiant energy, as x-rays, gamma rays, or cosmic rays. (Dictionary.com)
49 ellipses (…) represent claims limitations already taught
50 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
51 segmentation: to separate or divide into segments, wherein divide is defined: to distinguish the kinds of; classify, wherein distinguish is defined: to recognize as distinct or different; recognize the salient or individual features or characteristics of, wherein recognize is defined: to identify as something or someone previously seen, known, etc.. (Dictionary.com)
52 particular: exceptionally selective, attentive, or exacting; fastidious; fussy. (Dictionary.com)
53 “annotations” is further limited by “inner and outer vessel wall”.
54 “annotations” is further limited by “inner and outer vessel wall”.
55 “annotations” is further limited by “inner and outer vessel wall”.
56 severity: intensity or sharpness, as of cold or pain, wherein intensity is defined: the degree or extent to which something is intense. (Dictionary.com)
57 severity: intensity or sharpness, as of cold or pain, wherein intensity is defined: the degree or extent to which something is intense. (Dictionary.com)
58 legend: a table on a map, chart, or the like, listing and explaining the symbols used. (Dictionary.com)
59 severity: intensity or sharpness, as of cold or pain, wherein intensity is defined: the degree or extent to which something is intense. (Dictionary.com)
60 legend: a table on a map, chart, or the like, listing and explaining the symbols used. (Dictionary.com)
61 legend: a table on a map, chart, or the like, listing and explaining the symbols used. (Dictionary.com)
62 non-restrictive comma phrase under the broadest reasonable interpretatiion
63 non-restrictive comma phrase under the broadest reasonable interpretatiion
64 scan: Medicine/Medical, Biology.
A. examination of the body or an organ or part, or a biologically active material, by means of a technique such as computed axial tomography, nuclear magnetic resonance, ultrasonography, or scintigraphy.
B. the image or display so obtained.
65 and: (used to connect alternatives). (Dictionary.com)
66 text in {{squiggly brackets}} in claims 1,2,4,29 “does not limit the scope of a claim” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para:
As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms (“and”) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“and”) that suggests or makes a feature or step (in claims 1,2,4,29) optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
67 scan: Medicine/Medical, Biology.
A. examination of the body or an organ or part, or a biologically active material, by means of a technique such as computed axial tomography, nuclear magnetic resonance, ultrasonography, or scintigraphy.
B. the image or display so obtained.
68 MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 2nd para:
Examiners must consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 958-59, 2023 USPQ2d 795 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the court found the claims were improperly narrowed based on a preferred embodiment to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation, whereas the patent claims made no reference to sacral anatomy or sacral neuromodulation. Thus, the relevant prior art was improperly limited to a narrow subset of claim scope. See also MPEP § 2111 et seq. It is the subject matter of the properly construed claim that must be examined. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
69 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: MARKUSH ELEMENT: “to change”: infinitive: in English, the simple or basic form of a verb, with no endings to indicate the verb’s subject or tense, such as come, take, eat, be: used after auxiliary verbs or preceded by the word to, and sometimes functioning as a noun, such as He must be, I want to eat, To love is to understand, wherein tense is defined: the time, as past, present, or future, expressed by such a category. (Dictionary.com)
70 I interpret “to change” as past, present, or future
71 registration: the group or number registered, wherein register is defined: to enter or cause to be entered formally in a register, wherein register is defined: Photography. proper relationship between two plane surfaces in photography, as corresponding plates in photoengraving, wherein as is defined: in the role, function, or status of, wherein corresponding is defined: identical in all essentials or respects, wherein identical is defined: similar or alike in every way, wherein similar is defined: having a likeness or resemblance, especially in a general way, wherein general is defined: of, relating to, or true of such persons or things in the main, with possible exceptions; common to most; prevalent; usual.,
wherein photoengraving is defined:
A. a photographic process of preparing printing plates for letterpress printing.
B. a plate so produced.
C. a print made from it,
wherein print is defined: Computers. to produce (data) in legible alphanumeric or graphic form, wherein graphic is defined: giving a clear and effective picture; vivid., wherein picture is defined: a visual representation of a person, object, or scene, as a painting, drawing, photograph, etc.., wherein photograph is defined: a picture produced by photography, wherein photography is defined: the process or art of producing images of objects on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light or of other forms of radiant energy, as x-rays, gamma rays, or cosmic rays. (Dictionary.com)
72 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: MARKUSH ELEMENT: “to change”: infinitive: in English, the simple or basic form of a verb, with no endings to indicate the verb’s subject or tense, such as come, take, eat, be: used after auxiliary verbs or preceded by the word to, and sometimes functioning as a noun, such as He must be, I want to eat, To love is to understand, wherein tense is defined: the time, as past, present, or future, expressed by such a category. (Dictionary.com)
73 I interpret “to change” as (A) past, (B) present, or (C) future (the Markush element: [(A),(B) or (C)])
74 BROAD CLAIM LANGUAGE: MARKUSH ELEMENT: [(A),(B) or (C)]: “to change”: infinitive: in English, the simple or basic form of a verb, with no endings to indicate the verb’s subject or tense, such as come, take, eat, be: used after auxiliary verbs or preceded by the word to, and sometimes functioning as a noun, such as He must be, I want to eat, To love is to understand, wherein tense is defined: the time, as past, present, or future, expressed by such a category. (Dictionary.com): [(past), (present), or (future)].
75 I interpret “to change” as past, present, or future
76 Since MINE teaches Markush alternative (A): the past (“completion of the image alignment” [0081]), MINE teaches the Marksuh element [(A),(B), or (C)]-(A) the past, (B) the present, (C) the future-- under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 44.
77 “displayed” is a coordinating adjective with no change in meaning: (CAD-analysis & displayed information under the broadest reasonable interpretation
78 “CAD” is a cumulative adjective
79 “analysis” is a coordinating adjective with no change in meaning: displayed & CAD-analysis information under the broadest reasonable interpretation
80 “patient” is a coordinating adjective
81 “CT” is a cumulative adjective
82 “scan” is a coordinating adjective
83 imaging: Medicine/Medical. the use of computerized axial tomography, sonography, or other specialized techniques and instruments to obtain pictures of the interior of the body, especially those including soft tissues, wherein tomography is defined: A procedure by which waves are sent through an object and computers produce images of cross sections of the object by using information on how the waves are changed. Both ultrasound and CAT scans are medical uses of this technique, but it is also widely used in science and industry. (Dictionary.com)
84 adjective
85 adjective
86 adjective
87 adjective
88 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
89 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught
90 adjective
91 adjective
92 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
93 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught
94 text in {{squiggly brackets}} in claims 1,2,4,60 “does not limit the scope of a claim” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para:
As a general matter, the grammar (e.g., coordinate adjectives: e.g., “volumetric convolutional”) and ordinary meaning of terms (“and”) as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language (“and” & coordinate adjectives: e.g., “volumetric convolutional”) that suggests or makes a feature or step (in claims 1,2,4,60) optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
95 and: (used to connect alternatives) (Dictionary.com)
96 classify: to arrange or organize by classes; order according to class, wherein class is defined: a number of persons or things regarded as forming a group by reason of common attributes, characteristics, qualities, or traits; kind; sort, where regard is defined: to look at; observe, where observe is defined: to see, watch, perceive, or notice, wherein perceive is defined: to recognize, discern, envision, or understand: wherein recognize is defined: to identify from knowledge of appearance or characteristics. (Dictionary.com)
97 point: a place of which the position alone is considered; spot, wherein spot is defined: a place or locality, wherein place is defined: a region or area (Dictionary.com)
98 and: (used to connect alternatives) (Dictionary.com)
99 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
100 ellipse (…) represent claim limitations already taught
101 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
102 ellipse (…) represent claim limitations already taught
Prosecution Insights