Response to Arguments
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 .
Applicant’s response to the Non-final Office Action dated 09/16/2025, dated 12/05/2025, has been entered and made of record.
In light of Applicant’s cancellation of Claim 19, the objection of record with respect to this claim has been rendered moot.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claim 19 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims based on 35 U.S.C. 103 have been carefully considered and found to be partially persuasive. Specifically, Applicant’s argues that the term “diagnostic value” must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Although Examiner agrees with Applicant’s assertion, Examiner reminds Applicant that subject matter from the specification may not be entered into the claims while examining the claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that Ehlers’ image quality determination may not be reasonably interpreted as Applicant’s broad recitation of “diagnostic value”. If Applicant requires specific consideration with respect to the term, Application should amend the claims in order for them to be more specifically address the desired term. Additionally, Applicant further argues that Huo’s computation of image quality scores should not be interpreted as Applicant’s recited score of quantifying the diagnostic value of the angiogram. Examiner respectfully disagrees and request that Applicant amend the claim limitation in order for it to be more specifically address Applicant’s invention.
Applicant further argues that the stated motivation to combine Ehlers and Hue is improper because they do not address the same problem. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both Ehlers and Huo are in the same field of endeavor of quality evaluation of angiogram images, and therefore, combinable. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as stated above, both references are in the same field of endeavor, and therefore may be combined to teach the limitation of generation of a score that quantifies image quality of the angiogram image, which as addressed above, is interpreted as quantification of a diagnostic value.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of Claim 7, presented in Pages 11 and 12 of its Reply, have been found persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of Claim 11 is not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant first argues that the combination of Ehlers and Huo does not provide the teachings of “obtaining multiple angiograms associated with an anatomical region of a patient.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. For example, Ehlers discloses “The machine executable instructions include an imager interface 112 that receives a series of ultra-widefield angiography images of a retina of a patient from an associated imager” (see Ehlers, Paragraph [0020]). With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Ehlers and Huo lack of teaching of the quantification of score quantifying of diagnostic value, please refer to Examiner’s reply to the Applicant’s arguments with respect rejection of Claim 1. Applicant argues that Liu is not in the same field of endeavor, and may not be combined with Ehlers and Huo to teach sorting of the images. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Liu is simply brought in for the teaching of sorting of images in accordance with quality scores of the images. Liu does not need to teach angiogram images as the combination of Ehlers and Huo teaches that concept. In addition, Applicant argues that the motivation to combine the references is legally insufficient. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated in the
response provided above for the same arguments with respect to the motivation to combine the Ehlers and Huo with respect to the rejection of Claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of Claim 11 are not persuasive.
THIS ACTION IS 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehlers et al. (US 2022/0092776 – IDS) in view of Huo et al. (WO 2020/172999).
Consider Claim 1, Ehlers discloses “A computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining one or more frames of an angiogram, which angiogram is acquired during an angiography exam of an anatomical region of interest” (Ehlers, Paragraph [0044] and Fig. 3:302 disclose acquiring a series of angiography images of a retina of a patient); “based on at least one pre-defined criterion, determining, among the one or more frames, whether the angiogram at least comprises one frame with a diagnostic value” (Ehlers, Paragraph [0044] and Fig. 3:304 disclose
PNG
media_image1.png
262
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
). Although, as shown above, Ehlers discloses classification of images as acceptable for diagnostic or not based on the required a predefined quality parameter for each image representing a quality of the image using a trained neural network (trained machine learning algorithm) (Ehlers, Paragraph [0044]), it does not explicitly discloses “when the angiogram comprises at least one frame with the diagnostic value, determining, based on the angiogram, a score (Huo, Paragraph [0005] in the enclosed machine translated version). In addition, Huo discloses calculating a quality score of the optimal frame image and the quality score of each frame of contrast image (Huo, Paragraphs [0021]-[0026]).
Accordingly, before the effective date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ehlers with the teachings of Huo to use Ehlers machine learning algorithm in order to equip it to quantify a quality score/diagnostic value of the optimal frame among the angiographic image frames. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these elements in order to provide a robust tool for automatically presenting to an analyst at least one optimal frame in the angiogram image sequence, “thereby facilitating post-coronary angiography image analysis, shortening the manual processing time, and reducing errors caused by manual subjective factors on the analysis result” (Huo, Paragraph [0005], last three lines). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ehlers and Huo to obtain the invention in Claim 1.
Consider Claim 10, the combination of Ehlers and Huo discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein said determining of the score is further based on at least one query associated with a diagnosis purpose” (Huo, Paragraph [0005] discloses “If lesion analysis is performed on the coronary angiography image with poor quality, the accuracy of the analysis result may be seriously affected, and therefore, it is determined that the quality of the coronary angiogram image is the premise of coronary angiography image analysis. The quality of coronary angiographic images is evaluated, and it is necessary to combine the clarity of the contrast image and the integrity of the blood vessel.”) The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Ehlers and Huo references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 10 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 10 is met by Ehlers and Huo.
Claim 15 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps of the method recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Ehlers and Huo references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Ehlers and Huo discloses existence of a memory and a processor for its invention (Ehlers, Fig. 2:220, the computer-readable medium, and Fig. 2:212, the processor).
Claims 2-4, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehlers et al. (US 2022/0092776 – IDS) in view of Huo et al. (WO 2020/172999), and in further view of Kashyap et al. (US 2020/0258215).
Consider Claim 2 (and similarly Claim 18), although the combination of Ehlers and Huo discloses classification of image frames as diagnostically acceptable or not (Ehlers, Paragraph [0044]), this combination does not explicitly disclose “when the angiogram comprises no frame with the diagnostic value or if the score is below a pre-defined score threshold, stopping acquisition of the angiogram and adjusting one or more imaging parameters associated with the angiography exam, and acquiring one or more frames of a further angiogram based on the adjusted one or more imaging parameters.” However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Kashyap discloses when a medical images is classified as diagnostically unacceptable, the system generates “a message prompting the technician to adjust at least one parameter associated with the medical image and to recapture the medical image using the at least one adjusted parameter” (Kashyap, Paragraph [0068] and Fig. 9:425).
Accordingly, before the effective date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the combination of Ehlers and Huo with the teachings of Kashyap to stop acquiring angiogram images if the quality is below certain threshold, and retake the images after adjusting certain parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these elements in order to provide an efficient tool for being able to acquire images that are diagnostically of value to an analyst, thereby saving time and resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ehlers, Huo, and Kashyap to obtain the invention in Claim 2.
Consider Claim 3, the combination of Ehlers, Huo, and Kashyap discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising: discarding the angiogram” (Kashyap, Fig. 9:425, the branch marked as “No”, wherein only the diagnostically acceptable image frames are being stored; therefore, the unacceptable ones are being discarded). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Ehlers, Huo, and Kashyap references presented in the rejection of Claim 2, apply to Claim 3 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 3 is met by Ehlers, Huo, and Kashyap.
Consider Claim 4 (and similarly Claims 16 and 19), the combination of Ehlers, Huo, and Kashyap discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: when the score equals to or is above a pre-defined score threshold, stopping the angiography exam” (Kashyap, Fig. 9:425, the branch marked as “No”, wherein the diagnostically acceptable image frames are instructed to be stored for further analysis; and therefore, hinting that the exam may be stopped). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Ehlers, Huo, and Kashyap references presented in the rejection of Claim 2, apply to Claim 4 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 4 is met by Ehlers, Huo, and Kashyap.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehlers et al. (US 2022/0092776 – IDS) in view of Huo et al. (WO 2020/172999), and in further view of Bernard et al. (US 10,140,421).
Consider Claim 9 (and similarly Claim 17), the combination of Ehlers and Huo does not explicitly disclose “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the score comprises a probability that at least one abnormality can be diagnosed based on the angiogram.” However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Bernard discloses “a confidence score corresponding to a calculated probability that the detected abnormality exists and/or corresponding to a calculated probability that the detected abnormality is malignant can be displayed as numerical text” (Bernard, column 26, lines 25-29).
Accordingly, before the effective date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the combination of Ehlers and Huo with the teachings of Bernard to determine the probability of an abnormality to be diagnosed from an image. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these elements in order to provide an efficient tool for automatically assign a quality score for image frames wherein diagnosis of the disease is more probable to recognize. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ehlers, Huo, and Bernard to obtain the invention in Claim 9.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehlers et al. (US 2022/0092776 – IDS) in view of Huo et al. (WO 2020/172999), and in further view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0374447).
Consider Claim 11, as shown above in analysis of Claim 1, the combination of Ehlers and Huo discloses “A computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining multiple angiograms associated with an anatomical region of interest of a patient; determining, for each of the multiple angiograms, a score using a trained machine-learning algorithm, wherein the score quantifies the diagnostic value of the angiogram;(Liu, Paragraph [0042]).
Accordingly, before the effective date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the combination of Ehlers and Huo with the teachings of Liu to sort the angiogram images on the bases of the quality score in a descending order. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these elements in order to provide an efficient and accurate selection of one or more angiogram images to improve the diagnostic results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ehlers, Huo, and Liu to obtain the invention in Claim 11.
Consider Claim 12, the combination of Ehlers, Huo, and Liu discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising: displaying and/or processing the multiple angiograms in an order associated with the sorting” (Liu discloses using the highest quality image that is found in the sorted images to be further processed. Therefore, additional images may be selected from the sorted queue of images to be processed). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Ehlers, Huo, and Liu references presented in the rejection of Claim 11, apply to Claim 12 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 12 is met by Ehlers, Huo, and Liu.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehlers et al. (US 2022/0092776 – IDS) in view of Huo et al. (WO 2020/172999), in further view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0374447), and still in further view of Kashyap et al. (US 2020/0258215).
Consider Claim 13, the combination of Ehlers, Huo, and Liu does not explicitly disclose “The computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising: when one of the scores equals to or is above a pre-defined score threshold, stopping the angiography exam.” However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Kashyap discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: when the score equals to or is above a pre-defined score threshold, stopping the angiography exam” (Kashyap, Fig. 9:425, the branch marked as “No”, wherein the diagnostically acceptable image frames are instructed to be stored for further analysis; and therefore, hinting that the exam may be stopped)”.
Accordingly, before the effective date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the combination of Ehlers, Huo, and Liu with the teachings of Kashyap to stop acquiring angiogram images if the quality is equal or above a pre-defined score threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these elements in order to provide an efficient tool for being able to acquire images that are diagnostically of value to an analyst, thereby saving time and resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ehlers, Huo, Liu, and Kashyap to obtain the invention in Claim 13.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehlers et al. (US 2022/0092776 – IDS) in view of Huo et al. (WO 2020/172999), in further view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0374447), and in still further view of Bernard et al. (US 10,140,421).
Consider Claim 14, the combination of Ehlers, Huo, and Liu does not explicitly disclose “The computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the score comprises a probability that at least one abnormality can be diagnosed based on the angiogram.” However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Bernard discloses “a confidence score corresponding to a calculated probability that the detected abnormality exists and/or corresponding to a calculated probability that the detected abnormality is malignant can be displayed as numerical text” (Bernard, column 26, lines 25-29).
Accordingly, before the effective date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the combination of Ehlers, Huo, and Liu with the teachings of Bernard to determine the probability of an abnormality to be diagnosed from an image. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined these elements in order to provide an efficient tool for automatically assign a quality score for image frames wherein diagnosis of the disease is more probable to recognize. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ehlers, Huo, Liu, and Bernard to obtain the invention in Claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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: none of the cited prior art references, alone or in combination, provides a motivation to teach the ordered combination of the limitations recited in these claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Siamak HARANDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 - 6:00 ET.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571)272-3382. 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.
/Siamak Harandi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662