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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to 103 rejections for independent claim 1, applicant argues that Nachtomy's disclosure for user confirmation limitation does not appear in provisional application and cannot be accorded priority date of 12/22/2021 to be used as prior art (page 1). The applicant argues that provisional application does not provide same disclosure as cited paragraphs of [0007] and [0098] and [0100] of publication. Applicant specifically argues that Nachtomy does not have same disclosure about modifying the shape of the pathway and “conforms to the vessel centerline” which do not appear in the provisional, and “conform to the vessel centerline” is absent from the provisional (page 2).
For example, applicant compares paragraph [0098] to corresponding paragraph [0065] of provisional application such that "adapt the footprint line to a user defined vessel centerline" does not appear in [0065]. The applicant further argues providing other paragraphs and language that do not match between publication and provisional application, with focusing on the language and words. The applicant specifically contrast discrepancy between publication’s [0099] and provisional paragraph [0066] wherein provisional discloses only a generic correctness confirmation with no reference to the vessel centerline, and the distinction is not merely semantic and “conforms to the vessel centerline” is technically specific disclosure describing the precise nature and purpose of the user’s confirmation inn the context of intraluminal co-registration (page 3).
Moreover, applicant argues that publication’s [0100] and corresponding provisional [0067] are similar but does publication includes “vessel centerline” language in place of the provisional’s “shape of the target vessel,” and this concept does not appear anywhere in the provisional in the context of user confirmation step (page 4). Applicant further states that disclosure of provisional uses centerline pathway merely to describe the pathway being confirmed, not to identify the vessel centerline as the standard against which conformance is assessed (page 4).
Lastly, applicant argues that cited [0113] only address workflow mechanics of existing a pathway modification mode after user satisfaction is achieved, and mentions nothing about conforming that the pathway conforms to a vessel centerline and does not support technically specific confirmation teaching that the Examiner attributes to Nachtomy (page 4).
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The argument of applicant is directed toward whether provisional disclosure contains "confirm to the centerline" and other languages as publication. However, the examiner submits that Nachtomy was cited for disclosing claimed limitation of GUI, specifically for the limitation "receive via the input device and the regenerated GUI a confirmation that the modified pullback path and/or the modified branch is confirmed." Thus, 63/292,592 provides same disclosure of graphical user interface, user may edit the pathway, a prompt to a user that user may adjust the position or shape of the pathway ([0070] and displayed to a user after the user selects an input to edit a pathway ([0070] and [0072]), which is clearly stated in cited paragraphs of [0098] and [0100] of publication as set forth in final rejection. Moreover, the examiner notes that argued "centerline" is disclosed in 63/292,592, as "user input modifying the shape of the centerline, confirming the shape of the centerline pathway matching shape of the imaged vessel" and "conforming pathway to a centerline" (in paragraph [0057], and pages 33 and 37 of 62/292,592).
The examiner has incorporated disclosure from pages 33 and 37 of 62/292,592 as follows:
4. Determine a centerline pathway of the intraluminal imaging device during the pullback
procedure.
5. Overlay the centerline pathway over the extraluminal imaging device from step 1.
6. Receive a user input modifying the shape of the centerline pathway.
7. Receive a user input confirming that the shape of the centerline pathway matches an
expected shape of the imaged vessel.
The step 4 discloses vessel centerline, and step 6 teaches “modified shape of the centerline pathway, while step 7 teaches confirming with user input that the shape of the centerline matches expected shape of the imaged vessel, which reads on limitation of "receive via the input device and the regenerated GUI a confirmation that the modified pullback path and/or the modified branch is confirmed.”
Thus, the examiner finds same disclosure of the claimed limitation in provisional application 63/,292,592 as publication of Nachtomy, thus, qualifies as prior art and rejection is maintained.
Therefore, rejection is proper and maintained (For clarity, the examiner incorporated paragraphs from provisional 63/292,529 corresponding to the cited publication paragraphs).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The following rejection has been modified in view of applicant's arguments and/or amendments.
Claim(s) 1, 9-11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Kunio,” US 2019/0029624 (hereinafter Kunio) and in view of “Nachtomy et al.,” US 2023/0190215 (hereinafter Nachtomy, provisional application 63/292,529 has same disclosure about modifying the shape of the pathway, filed on Dec. 22 2021), and further in view of “PAI RAIKAR et al.,” US 2025/0312098 (hereinafter PAI RAIKAR, provisional application 63/344,880 (cited corresponding paragraphs are same) filed on 05/23/2022).
Regarding to claim 1, Kunio teaches an apparatus for an intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) imaging system, comprising:
a display (Screen 310 Figure 15);
an interface (communication interface 306 Fig. 15 [0094]) configured to couple to an IVUS catheter (IVUS catheter [0004]);
a processor coupled to the interface and the display (Figure 15); and a memory device comprising instructions (computer include a processor, computer-executable instructions [0094]), which when executed by the processor cause the IVUS imaging system to:
receive an indication of an end location, the end location corresponding to a location of an intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guide catheter distal tip on an external image (obtain user inputs to define the ending locations of the pullback S801 Figure 14, catheter probe tip with marker catheter inserted into artery [0037]),
wherein the IVUS guide catheter is or was inserted into a vessel and the vessel is represented in the external image (catheter inserted into artery, obtain image of the coronary artery [0037]); register, based in part on the location of the IVUS guide catheter distal tip and a start location (beginning location of the pullback and co-registration of the path [0092]), each of a plurality of frames of a series of IVUS images captured from within the vessel via an IVUS pullback operation to locations on the external image to generate a pullback path of the IVUS pullback operation and a branch (co-registered path between imaging catheter and angiographic data [0092]),
wherein the start location corresponding to a location of the start of the IVUS pullback operation (start and end locations of the intravascular imaging pullback [0092]);
generate a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising indications of the external image (selected by the user, displays angiographic image frame with indicators overlaid on the angiographic image frame [0080]), the start location, the end location, the pullback path and the branch (obtaining user inputs to define the beginning and the ending locations of the pullback [0092] Figure 5 and 7 show branch, pullback path with start and end locations);
receive, via an input device and the GUI at least one modification to the pullback path and/or the branch ([0060] Figure 7 shows updated path with updated markers [0060], and [0071]);
regenerate the GUI, the regenerated GUI comprising indications of: the external image, the start location, the end location, and the pullback path and the modified branch, the modified pullback path and the branch, or the modified pullback path and the modified branch (Figure 7 shows external image, start and end location, and pullback path and modified branch that can include the path [0071]);
Kunio does not further teach details on GUI and receive, via the input device and the regenerated GUI a confirmation that the modified pullback path and/or the modified branch is confirmed.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in IVUS pullback system and method, Nachtomy teaches co-registration of intraluminal data with external image, the processor configured to provide an input element by which a user may provide a user input indicating that the calculated path conforms to the vessel centerline, and the user is able to edit the generated calculated path to create a roadmap for co-registration calculation and display, and user may edit the shape of the pathway and/or confirm that the shape of the pathway is correct (publication [0007], [0098], and [0100]; provisional application specification’s paragraph 0057, Figure 9 shows vessel centerline 940 in the image, pages 33 and 37 steps 4-7 under Steps of a Method of the Present Invention, page 33 and 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify user interface and graphical user interface as taught by Kunio to incorporate teaching of Nachtomy, as both are directed to generating pullback pathway and using an user input to update and generate the pathways, and since user confirming the shape and position of the pathway was well known in the art as taught by Nachtomy. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Kunio with no change in their respective functions, implementing user confirmation of the modified path and/or branch, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide modification of the path to a user’s satisfaction ([0113]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
With regards to amended limitation of “modification to the pullback path and the branch and regenerated GUI comprising indications of the modified pullback path and the modified branch, and receive confirmation that the modified pullback and the modified branch is confirmed,” the examiner notes that Kunio and Nachtomy together disclose receiving, regenerating GUI, and confirming either modified pullback path or modified branch, but does not disclose “modified pullback path and the modified branch.”
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in navigating intraluminal device, PAI RAIKAR discloses when the shifted position occurs in planning and actual performing the procedure, the surgeon can override the position and select a different adjustment, such that artery branch trajectory and catheter path are also shifted or adjusted, and the desired trajectory can be recalculated based on the updated path ([0061]; Figures 13-14 show adjusting branch and pathway) and also updating catheter path annotations in the image based on the branch trajectory adjusted ([0098]), and updating the trajectory based on the locations of the artery branches on each new image ([0109]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify user interface and graphical user interface as taught by Kunio to incorporate teaching of PAI RAIKAR, as both are directed to generating instrument pathway and using an user input to update and generate the pathways, and adjusting both branch trajectory and path was well known in the art as taught by PAI RAIKAR. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Kunio with no change in their respective functions, implementing user adjusting modified path and branch, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide compensating for artery deformation during procedure and misalignment of the surgical plan (path annotations) on the image ([0109]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claims 9-10, Kunio, Nachtomy, and PAI RAIKAR together teach all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kunio further teaches following limitations:
Of claim 9, the memory device further comprises instructions ([0094]) that when executed by the processor cause the IVUS imaging system to receive, from the input device, an indication of the start location (use the marker location in angiography image to calculate an acquisition location of the intravascular image frame [0090] Figures 10-11 [0079]-[0080]).
Of claim 10, the memory device further comprises instructions that when executed by the processor cause the IVUS imaging system to: receive ([0094]), from the input device, an indication of the start location on an external image of the vessel (a user is requested to place inputs at the start and end locations [0092]); capture the external image via external image acquisition circuitry; and capture the series of IVUS images via IVUS image acquisition circuitry ( Figure 5 shows when the start of a pullback procedure is indicated, acquisition of intravascular image and angiographic image [0078]).
Regarding to claim 11, Kunio teaches at least one machine readable storage device, comprising a plurality of instructions that in response to being executed by a processor of an intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) imaging system (computer include a processor, computer-executable instructions [0094]) cause the processor to:
receive an indication of an end location, the end location corresponding to a location of an intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guide catheter distal tip on an external image (obtain user inputs to define the ending locations of the pullback S801 Figure 14, catheter probe tip with marker catheter inserted into artery [0037]),
wherein the IVUS guide catheter is or was inserted into a vessel and the vessel is represented in the external image (catheter inserted into artery, obtain image of the coronary artery [0037]);
register, based in part on the location of the IVUS guide catheter distal tip and a start location, each of a plurality of frames of a series of IVUS images captured from within the vessel via an IVUS pullback operation to locations on the external image to generate a pullback path of the IVUS pullback operation and a branch (co-registered path between imaging catheter and angiographic data [0092]),
wherein the start location corresponding to a location of the start of the IVUS pullback operation (start and end locations of the intravascular imaging pullback [0092]);
generate a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising indications of the external image (selected by the user, displays angiographic image frame with indicators overlaid on the angiographic image frame [0080]), the start location, the end location, the pullback path and the branch (obtaining user inputs to define the beginning and the ending locations of the pullback [0092] Figure 5 and 7 show branch, pullback path with start and end locations);
receive, via an input device and the GUI at least one modification to the pullback path and/or the branch ([0060] Figure 7 shows updated path with updated markers [0060], and [0071]);
regenerate the GUI, the regenerated GUI comprising indications of: the external image, the start location, the end location, and the pullback path and the modified branch, the modified pullback path and the branch, or the modified pullback path and the modified branch (Figure 7 shows external image, start and end location, and pullback path and modified branch that can include the path [0071]);
Kunio does not further teach details on GUI and receive, via the input device and the regenerated GUI a confirmation that the modified pullback path and/or the modified branch is confirmed.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in IVUS pullback system and method, Nachtomy teaches co-registration of intraluminal data with external image, the processor configured to provide an input element by which a user may provide a user input indicating that the calculated path conforms to the vessel centerline, and the user is able to edit the generated calculated path to create a roadmap for co-registration calculation and display, and user may edit the shape of the pathway and/or confirm that the shape of the pathway is correct (publication [0007], [0098], and [0100]; provisional application specification’s paragraph 0057, Figure 9 shows vessel centerline 940 in the image, pages 33 and 37 steps 4-7 under Steps of a Method of the Present Invention, page 33 and 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify user interface and graphical user interface as taught by Kunio to incorporate teaching of Nachtomy, as both are directed to generating pullback pathway and using an user input to update and generate the pathways, and since user confirming the shape and position of the pathway was well known in the art as taught by Nachtomy. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Kunio with no change in their respective functions, implementing user confirmation of the modified path and/or branch, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide modification of the path to a user’s satisfaction ([0113]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
With regards to amended limitation of “modification to the pullback path and the branch and regenerated GUI comprising indications of the modified pullback path and the modified branch, and receive confirmation that the modified pullback and the modified branch is confirmed,” the examiner notes that Kunio and Nachtomy together disclose receiving, regenerating GUI, and confirming either modified pullback path or modified branch, but does not disclose “modified pullback path and the modified branch.”
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in navigating intraluminal device, PAI RAIKAR discloses when the shifted position occurs in planning and actual performing the procedure, the surgeon can override the position and select a different adjustment, such that artery branch trajectory and catheter path are also shifted or adjusted, and the desired trajectory can be recalculated based on the updated path ([0061]; Figures 13-14 show adjusting branch and pathway) and also updating catheter path annotations in the image based on the branch trajectory adjusted ([0098]), and updating the trajectory based on the locations of the artery branches on each new image ([0109]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify user interface and graphical user interface as taught by Kunio to incorporate teaching of PAI RAIKAR, as both are directed to generating instrument pathway and using an user input to update and generate the pathways, and adjusting both branch trajectory and path was well known in the art as taught by PAI RAIKAR. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Kunio with no change in their respective functions, implementing user adjusting modified path and branch, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide compensating for artery deformation during procedure and misalignment of the surgical plan (path annotations) on the image ([0109]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 13, Kunio, Nachtomy, and PAI RAIKAR together teach all limitations of claim 11 as discussed above.
Kunio further teaches the further comprises instructions that in response to being executed by the processor causes the processor to: receive ([0094]), from the input device, an indication of the start location on an external image of the vessel (a user is requested to place inputs at the start and end locations [0092]); capture the external image via external image acquisition circuitry; and capture the series of IVUS images via IVUS image acquisition circuitry ( Figure 5 shows when the start of a pullback procedure is indicated, acquisition of intravascular image and angiographic image [0078]).
Regarding to claim 14, Kunio, Nachtomy, and PAI RAIKAR together teach all limitations of claim 11 as discussed above.
Kunio further teaches wherein the external image is an x-ray image (x-ray imaging device [0036]).
Regarding to claim 15, Kunio, Nachtomy, and PAI RAIKAR together teach all limitations of claim 11 as discussed above.
Kunio further teaches wherein the regenerated GUI further comprises an indication of a longitudinal view of the series of IVUS images (Figure 11 longitudinal view of the vessel [0080]), wherein the first regenerated GUI further comprises a slider to scroll along the longitudinal axis of the series of IVUS images (indicator 216 which is to be moved along the longitudinal axis Figure 11 [0080]) and a slider marker disposed on the pullback path, wherein the slider marker is linked to the slider such that movement of the slider causes a corresponding movement of the slider marker on the pullback path (path has indicator 212 overlaid on the angiographic image frame, position where the selected intravascular image frame is acquired [0080]).
Regarding to claim 16, Kunio teaches a method comprising:
receiving an indication of an end location, the end location corresponding to a location of an intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guide catheter distal tip on an external image (obtain user inputs to define the ending locations of the pullback S801 Figure 14, catheter probe tip with marker catheter inserted into artery [0037]),
wherein the IVUS guide catheter is or was inserted into a vessel and the vessel is represented in the external image (catheter inserted into artery, obtain image of the coronary artery [0037]);
registering, based in part on the location of the IVUS guide catheter distal tip and a start location, each of a plurality of frames of a series of IVUS images captured from within the vessel via an IVUS pullback operation to locations on the external image to generate a pullback path of the IVUS pullback operation and a branch (co-registered path between imaging catheter and angiographic data [0092]),
wherein the start location corresponding to a location of the start of the IVUS pullback operation (start and end locations of the intravascular imaging pullback [0092]);
generating a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising indications of the external image (selected by the user, displays angiographic image frame with indicators overlaid on the angiographic image frame [0080]), the start location, the end location, the pullback path and the branch (obtaining user inputs to define the beginning and the ending locations of the pullback [0092] Figure 5 and 7 show branch, pullback path with start and end locations);
receiving, via an input device and the GUI at least one modification to the pullback path and/or the branch ([0060] Figure 7 shows updated path with updated markers [0060], and [0071]);
regenerating the GUI, the regenerated GUI comprising indications of: the external image, the start location, the end location, and the pullback path and the modified branch, the modified pullback path and the branch, or the modified pullback path and the modified branch (Figure 7 shows external image, start and end location, and pullback path and modified branch that can include the path [0071]);
Kunio does not further teach details on GUI and receive, via the input device and the regenerated GUI a confirmation that the modified pullback path and/or the modified branch is confirmed.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in IVUS pullback system and method, Nachtomy teaches co-registration of intraluminal data with external image, the processor configured to provide an input element by which a user may provide a user input indicating that the calculated path conforms to the vessel centerline, and the user is able to edit the generated calculated path to create a roadmap for co-registration calculation and display, and user may edit the shape of the pathway and/or confirm that the shape of the pathway is correct (publication [0007], [0098], and [0100]; provisional application specification’s paragraph 0057, Figure 9 shows vessel centerline 940 in the image, pages 33 and 37 steps 4-7 under Steps of a Method of the Present Invention, page 33 and 37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify user interface and graphical user interface as taught by Kunio to incorporate teaching of Nachtomy, as both are directed to generating pullback pathway and using an user input to update and generate the pathways, and since user confirming the shape and position of the pathway was well known in the art as taught by Nachtomy. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Kunio with no change in their respective functions, implementing user confirmation of the modified path and/or branch, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide modification of the path to a user’s satisfaction ([0113]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
With regards to amended limitation of “modification to the pullback path and the branch and regenerated GUI comprising indications of the modified pullback path and the modified branch, and receive confirmation that the modified pullback and the modified branch is confirmed,” the examiner notes that Kunio and Nachtomy together disclose receiving, regenerating GUI, and confirming either modified pullback path or modified branch, but does not disclose “modified pullback path and the modified branch.”
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in navigating intraluminal device, PAI RAIKAR discloses when the shifted position occurs in planning and actual performing the procedure, the surgeon can override the position and select a different adjustment, such that artery branch trajectory and catheter path are also shifted or adjusted, and the desired trajectory can be recalculated based on the updated path ([0061]; Figures 13-14 show adjusting branch and pathway) and also updating catheter path annotations in the image based on the branch trajectory adjusted ([0098]), and updating the trajectory based on the locations of the artery branches on each new image ([0109]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify user interface and graphical user interface as taught by Kunio to incorporate teaching of PAI RAIKAR, as both are directed to generating instrument pathway and using an user input to update and generate the pathways, and adjusting both branch trajectory and path was well known in the art as taught by PAI RAIKAR. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Kunio with no change in their respective functions, implementing user adjusting modified path and branch, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide compensating for artery deformation during procedure and misalignment of the surgical plan (path annotations) on the image ([0109]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 2-7, 12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunio, Nachtomy, and PAI RAIKAR as applied to claims 1, 11, and 16 above, and further in view of “O’Dell,” US 2014/0355858 (hereinafter O’Dell).
Regarding to claims 2, 12, and 17, Kunio, Nachtomy, and PAI RAIKAR together teach all limitations of claims 1, 11, and 16 as discussed above.
Kunio further teaches wherein the at least one modification is a modification to the pullback path ([0060] Figure 7 shows updated path with updated markers [0060], and [0071]) and wherein the memory device further comprises instructions that when executed by the processor cause the IVUS imaging system to: receive, via the input device and the regenerated GUI a modification to the branch; and regenerate the GUI a second time, the second regenerated GUI comprising indications of the external image, the start location, the end location, the modified pullback path (Figure 7 shows external image, start and end location, and pullback path and modified branch that can include the path [0071]).
Kunio does not explicitly disclose modified branch as claimed.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in blood vessel imaging system and method, O’Dell teaches the second regenerated GUI comprising indications of the modified branch (Figure 10 [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify blood vessel branches as taught by Kunio and Nachtomy to incorporate teaching of O’Dell, since correcting erroneous branch connections within the blood vessel tree was well known in the art as taught by O’Dell. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Kunio with no change in their respective functions, modifying its blood vessel branches identified using algorithm of O’Dell to detect erroneous branches and repair it, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to repair erroneous vessel tree connections ([0020]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claims 3 and 18, Kunio, Nachtomy, PAI RAIKAR, and O’Dell together teach all limitations of claims 2 and 17 as discussed above.
Kunio further teaches wherein the pullback path is registered to a longitudinal axis of the vessel (imaging catheter path can be representative line of the vessel’s longitudinal direction [0063]; co-registration path in longitudinal view [0079]).
Regarding to claims 4 and 19, Kunio, Nachtomy, PAI RAIKAR, and O’Dell together teach all limitations of claims 3 and 18 as discussed above.
Nachtomy further discloses wherein the pullback path comprises a plurality of nodes and wherein the at least one modification to the pullback path comprises a modification to a location of one or more of the plurality of nodes (anchors and/or other anchors along the calculated line, footprint line with anchors along the calculated footprint line, anchor points or region of the calculated footprint line closed in proximity to moved anchor may be adjusted [0111] anchor points 1304 Figure 13; provisional appl. [0076] and Figure 13).
Regarding to claims 5 and 20, Kunio, Nachtomy, PAI RAIKAR, and O’Dell together teach all limitations of claims 4 and 19 as discussed above.
O’Dell further teaches wherein the modification to the branch changes a location of the branch along the longitudinal axis (Figure 7-10 show change of location of branch along the longitudinal axis of main root branch 420 of Figure 4).
Regarding to claim 6, Kunio, Nachtomy, PAI RAIKAR, and O’Dell together teach all limitations of claim 5 as discussed above.
O’Dell further teaches wherein the branch is a first branch of a plurality of branches and wherein the memory device further comprises instructions that when executed by the processor cause the IVUS imaging system to change the location of a second branch of the plurality of branches responsive to the modification (Figure 7 has 464 branch and figure 8 shows branch is removed and removed child branch from the vascular model [0048]-[0049]).
Regarding to claim 7, Kunio, Nachtomy, PAI RAIKAR, and O’Dell together teach all limitations of claim 6 as discussed above.
O’Dell further teaches wherein the first regenerated GUI further comprises numerical or textual designations for the plurality of branches (Box A 410 and Box C 414 [0044]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunio, Nachtomy, and PAI RAIKAR as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Kunio,” US 2019/0029623 (hereinafter Kunio 623).
Regarding to claim 8, Kunio, Nachtomy, and PAI RAIKAR together teach all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kunio further teaches retrieve an angiogram from a memory device, the angiogram comprising a plurality of frames; generate an external image selection GUI comprising an indication of a frame of the plurality of frames of the angiogram and receive, via the input device and the external image selection GUI, an indication to select a one of the plurality of frames of the angiogram as the external image (selecting frame [0071] Figure 7).
Kunio and Nachtomy do not further disclose at least one navigation button to scroll through plurality of frames.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in GUI for selecting image frames for blood vessel, Kunio 623 teaches various GUI buttons for selecting different options for image registrations and GUI displaying an angiography image frame, a slide bar, next frame button to scroll through frames of images ([0116]-[0118], slide bar to select a frame for user inputs Figure 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify GUI for selection of image frame as taught by Kunio and Nachtomy to incorporate teaching of Kunio 623, since slide bar and button on GUI was well known in the art as taught by Kunio 623. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Kunio’s GUI with no change in their respective functions, adding user input interface such as button an d slide bar, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to enable user to make selection among plurality of image frames ([0110]-[0112]) and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA J PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 am - 3 pm.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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.
/PATRICIA J PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights