DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6, 10, 13, 14, and 18 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the references teaches receiving an indication of a region of a one of the IVUS location either inside or outside of initial lumen border, and generating an updated lumen border.
Examiner would like to point out that Merritt fig. 3 teaches obtaining images and analyzing images to identify potential borders. Element 250 teaches receiving user input for selection of the border, as such meets claim limitations and the rejection is maintained and made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 10, 13, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Publication No. 2014/0180071 to Stigall et al. in view of U. S. Publication No. 2019/0282199 to Merritt.
Regarding Claims 1, 13, and 18, Stigall teaches a computer implemented method, comprising: receiving, via an input device, receiving ivus images and automatically detecting vessel wall (figs. 5 and 9 teaches ivus images showing lumen wall); generating, at a processing component of an IVUS system, an updated lumen border based on an initially detected lumen border and the region (fig. 8 and para 049-051); generating a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising visualizations of the IVUS image and the updated lumen border; and causing the GUI to be displayed on a display (para 008-011; figs. 5 and 9 teaches a gui on a display).
Stigall teaches all of the above claimed limitations but does not expressly teach receiving via an input device an indication of a region corresponding to lumen border; wherein the indication of the region of the one of the IVUS images is received via a click on the GUI.
Merritt teaches receiving via an input device an indication of a region corresponding to lumen border; wherein the indication of the region of the one of the IVUS images is received via a click on the GUI (figs. 3-5, 7, 10-11 teaches clicking on a gui for lumen border selection).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Stigall with a setup such that a user selects the lumen region, as taught by Merritt, since such a setup would result in precise lumen wall being identified by the system, resulting in better imaging and diagnosis.
Regarding Claim 2, Stigall teaches receiving a series of IVUS images of the vessel of a patient from an IVUS catheter, the series of IVUS images comprising a plurality of frames, the IVUS image a one of the plurality of frames (para 009, 025-027 teaches ivus, ultrasounic images are captures as plurality of frames).
Regarding Claim 3, Stigall teaches automatically detecting the initially detected lumen border based on the IVUS image (para 045 teaches border of lumen on ivus images).
Regarding Claim 4, Stigall teaches generating an initial GUI comprising visualizations of the IVUS image and the initially detected lumen border (para 045 teaches border of lumen on ivus images); and causing the initial GUI to be displayed on a display (figs. 5 and 9 teaches a gui on a display).
Regarding Claim 5, Stigall teaches receiving the indication of the region of the IVUS image of the vessel comprises receiving via a mouse or a touch screen an indication of a location on the GUI corresponding to the region (para 0057 teaches a touch screen and mouse).
Regarding Claim 6 and 14, Stigall teaches that the region comprises an indication of whether the region is within or without the lumen border (para 008, 023, 024 and 030).
Regarding Claim 10, Stigall teaches that the machine learning model is a neural network (para 0063 teaches processing using multiple computers which is a neural network).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 11, 12, 15-17, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record are U. S. Publication No. 2014/0180071 to Stigall et al.; U. S. Patent No. 10,275,881 to Cardinal et al.; and U. S. Publication No. 2016/0171709 to Kim none of the prior art alone or in combination teaches that “the Euclidian distance map is based on a red, green, blue (RBG) channel segregation of the IVUS images and the region resulting in a plurality of pairs of images, and wherein the region is a first region, the method comprising: receiving, via the input device, an indication of a second region of the IVUS image of the vessel of the patient corresponding to a location either within or without the lumen border of the vessel, wherein the Euclidian distance map is based on the first region and the second region resulting in a plurality of pairs of images”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJAY CATTUNGAL whose telephone number is (571)272-1306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 571-270-1790. 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.
/SANJAY CATTUNGAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights