Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-7, 11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meijer et al. “Ultra-High-Resolution Subtraction CT Angiography in the Follow-Up of Treated Intracranial Aneurysms”, Insights into Imaging, XP093391448, 10:2-1 – 2-6, January 29, 2019 (cited by Applicant) (Hereinafter “Meijer”).
Regarding independent claims 1, 19, and 20 Meijer teaches a method of analyzing CT data describing a body region of a subject, the method comprising: acquiring a pre-contrast administration CT scan of the body region before administering a contrast agent to the subject; administering said contrast agent to the subject; acquiring a post-contrast administration CT scan; forming a subtraction map from said data by subtracting one of said scans from another; and displaying said subtraction map in a manner that identifies leaking of contrast agent out of blood vessels in said region. (Meijer, p. 2 col. 2, final paragraph, “A subtraction dataset is obtained by subtracting a non-contrast acquisition from a contrast-enhanced image.” [internal parentheticals removed] Note that any display of the subtraction map that shows the area of interest will necesssarily allow the user to identify the leaking of the contrast agent out of the blood vessels in the region.
Meijer lacks explicit teaching of the post-contrast administration CT scan is at least 1 minute after initiation of said administration of said contrast agent.
The flow of contrast through the patient’s circulatory system and the time it takes the contrast to usefully highlight a feature of interest is well understood in the art of angiography, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to take the post-contrast administration CT scan at a time when the contrast is most likely to highlight the desired feature.
Regarding claim 3, while Meijer does not explicitly disclose idling said CT scanner between said pre- and said post-contrast administration CT scans, Meijer also does not disclose running the machine between images. It would be obvious to idle the machine between relevant images in order to save energy.
Regarding claims 4-7, determination of the time during which the contrast is allowed to flow before taking the post-contrast administration CT image is within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art, given the direction of Meijer.
Regarding claims 11 and 13-17, the identification and treatment of various conditions is the principal function of the imaging performed by Meijer
Regarding claim 18, color coding of data output is routine.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meijer in view of Hsieh (2013/0172734).
Regarding claim 8, Meijer lacks explicit teaching of there is a plurality of post-contrast administration CT scans, and the method comprises forming a subtraction map for each of said plurality of post-contrast administration CT scans, relative to said pre-contrast administration CT scan, thereby forming a plurality of subtraction maps.
Hsieh teaches there is a plurality of post-contrast administration CT scans, and the method comprises forming a subtraction map for each of said plurality of post-contrast administration CT scans, relative to said pre-contrast administration CT scan, thereby forming a plurality of subtraction maps. Hsieh, [0036])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use more post-contrast administration CT scans to gather data at additional points in time.
Regarding claim 9, the choice of relevant scan times is entirely within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meijer in view of Proksa et al. (2019/0239842).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Meijer lacks explicit teaching of said displaying said subtraction map comprises identifying on said map a leakiness region in a microvasculature of the body of microvasculature leakiness.
Proksa teaches displaying said subtraction map comprises identifying on said map a leakiness region in a microvasculature of the body of microvasculature leakiness. (Proksa, [0018])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the automatic leak detection of Proksa into the vascular imaging of Meijer in order to automate the manual activity of checking the blood vessel for leaks.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN C GUNBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-3107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights