iDETAILED 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claims 1-3, 7-12, and 16-18, in the reply filed January 7th, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species II, III, and IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 7th, 2026.
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) 1-3, 8-12, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bressloff (US-20170076014-A1) and further in view of Sakamoto (US-20150257850-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bressloff teaches an image processing device that, with reference to tomographic data, which is a data set obtained using a sensor moving in a lumen (Fig. 1) of a biological tissue (“a section through a diseased coronary artery obtained using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS),” Para [0110]),
PNG
media_image1.png
443
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the image processing device comprising a control unit configured to acquire specification data specifying at least one location (“The next stage of the method involves defining points on the image corresponding to locations on the border which define the outer edge of the diseased tissue, and locations on the border which define the lumen,” Para [0118]) in a space corresponding to the tomographic data (Figs. 2a, 2b, and 2c),
PNG
media_image2.png
472
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
identify a direction of the at least one location from a centroid in a cross section of the biological tissue (Fig. 2a) orthogonal to a movement direction of the sensor (“The location of each pixel on the image is defined by an angular azimuthal coordinate, which is labelled φ on the image and a radial coordinate labelled r.” I.E., the angle and radial coordinate are informative of where a point is on the circle),
the direction including the at least one location, as a specification direction, with reference to the tomographic data (Fig. 2a, angular azimuthal coordinate, φ, and a radial coordinate, r, point to a location on the cross-sectional image).
Bressloff fails to teach the following limitations as further claimed. Sakamoto, however, further teaches:
displays, on a display, an image representing the biological tissue (Fig. 9, 910 “cross-sectional image”),
PNG
media_image3.png
429
505
media_image3.png
Greyscale
identify a position (found via “determination result”) corresponding to the at least one location in the cross section as a corresponding position according to an identified specification direction (“angular direction”) and a position (“distance from the center point”) of the centroid (“positional information related to the respective intersection points and the determination result obtained by the determination unit 240 or the determination update unit 250 are sent to the information calculation unit 1000. In an exemplary embodiment, this positional information can include an angular direction from the center point of the main blood vessel and a distance from the center point.” Para [0108]),
and perform control so that a mark (Fig. 9, “dots” 911-915) is displayed at an identified corresponding position when the image is displayed (“the boundary extraction unit 200 can cause the display unit 120 to display the determination result via the display control unit 110,” Para [0110]).
Sakamoto is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of using IVUS imaging to better determine position information of objects or parts of a lumen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sakamoto into Bressloff for the benefit of ease of identifying specific positions in a lumen.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Bressloff in view of Sakamoto teaches the device of claim 1, and Sakamoto further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to detect an inner surface of the biological tissue present in the cross section with reference to the tomographic data (“The detection unit 230 detects multiple points indicating an inner surface of the blood vessel on the tomographic image,” Para [0042]),
and identify, as the corresponding position, a position at which a straight line (“half-lines”) extending in the specification direction (“angular direction”) from a position of the centroid in the image intersects a detected inner surface (“with regard to respective multiple half-lines extending in each angular direction from the center point of the main blood vessel, the detection unit 230 detects the pixel closest to the center point among the white pixels on a half-line, as the intersection point corresponding to the angular direction,” Para [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sakamoto into Bressloff for the benefit of ease of identifying specific positions in a lumen.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. Bressloff in view of Sakamoto teaches the device of claim 2. Claim 3 additionally recites limitations that would have been obvious to try, in light of there being only a handful of finite solutions to the recognized problem of differentiating two different regions or area in an image – coloring them differently, using bounding boxes, or outlining them, to name a few. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to “perform control so that the mark is displayed by setting a first region including the corresponding position and a second region around the first region in an inner surface of the biological tissue to different colors in the image” for the benefit of better differentiating between areas of interest and areas not of interest. All would constitute a predictable result.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Bressloff in view of Sakamoto teaches the device of claim 1, and Bressloff further teaches an image processing system comprising: the image processing device according to claim 1; and the sensor (“IVUS is performed using a catheter with an ultrasound probe which is inserted into the blood vessel,” Para [0111]).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. Bressloff in view of Sakamoto teaches the system of claim 8, and Sakamoto further teaches the display (Fig. 9, “Display screen” 900).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sakamoto into Bressloff for the benefit of ease of identifying specific positions in a lumen.
Claims 10-12 and 16-18 are method or non-transitory computer-readable medium claims that correspond to device claims 1-3 and 8-9. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-3 and 8-9.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bressloff (US-20170076014-A1) in view of Sakamoto (US-20150257850-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Walker et al. (US-20150223902-A1).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Bressloff in view of Sakamoto teach the device of claim 1, but fail to teach the following limitations as further claimed. Walker, however, further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to acquire the specification data (location information of a “first point”) by receiving a user operation of specifying the at least one location on the image (“The image generator is configured to generate images of at least a first point on a first image of the operating site and a second point on a second image of the operating site in response to the user inputs,” Para [0009]).
Walker is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of imaging lumens using a catheter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Walker into Bressloff and Sakamoto for the benefit of a better understanding of where a specific point is in 3D in relation to a 2D image.
Claims 16 is a method claim that corresponds to device claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chao et al. (US-20200129142-A1) teaches a system for co-registering 2D points of an image captured by a catheter (or the like) to 3D images of a blood vessel.
Kemp (US-20140100454-A1) teaches a method for better determining the 3D position of a catheter based on a 2D IVUS image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL A OMETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2535. The examiner can normally be reached 6:45am-4:00pm ET Monday-Thursday, 6:45am-1:00pm ET every other Friday.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/Rachel Anne Ometz/ Examiner, Art Unit 2668 1/29/26
/VU LE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668