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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) or (f) based on an application (Application No. CN202211531694.2) filed in People’s Republic of China on 01 Dec 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 22 Feb 2024, 22 Apr 2025, and 10 Dec 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 4, “moderate regulation” and “severe regulation” should read “moderate regurgitation” and “severe regurgitation”, respectively. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“a Doppler effect According to” should read “a Doppler effect. According to” ([0069]); and
“For example, if a counts of” should read “For example, if a count of” ([0083]).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, 12-13, 16, and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“monitoring regurgitation” should read “monitoring a regurgitation” (claims 1 and 18);
“including:determining,” should read “including: determining,” (claim 1);
“the by the at least one processor” should read “by the at least one processor” (claims 3, 5);
“a maximum value, an average value, or a weighted value of the regurgitation information” should read “a maximum value, average value, or weighted value of the regurgitation information” (claim 3);
“a length of a regurgitation region” should read “a length of a regurgitation region” (claim 4);
“wherein, the operations further comprise:” should read “wherein the operations further comprise:” (claim 12);
“regurgitation information of the color Doppler image being displayed on the color Doppler image” should read “wherein a regurgitation information of the color Doppler image is displayed on the color Doppler image” (claim 13);
“in each of the one or more color Doppler images, the regurgitation information is greater than a threshold” should read “wherein in each of the one or more color Doppler images, the regurgitation information is greater than a threshold” (claim 16); and
“The method of claim 18 further comprising:” should read “The method of claim 18, further comprising:” (claim 19).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 10-11 are directed to a system for monitoring a regurgitation comprising at least one storage device including a set of instructions; and at least one processor in communication with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is directed to cause the system to perform operations including: determining, by the at least one processor, regurgitation information of a plurality of color Doppler images based on color Doppler data of a target position; generating, by the at least one processor, a regurgitation information data graph based on the regurgitation information of the plurality of color Doppler images, the regurgitation information data graph reflecting a correspondence between at least one frame number of at least one of the plurality of color Doppler images and the regurgitation information of the at least one color Doppler image; and wherein the determining, by the at least one processor, the regurgitation degree of the target position based on the regurgitation information data graph comprises: determining, by the at least one processor, a regurgitation speed of the target position based on the regurgitation information of the plurality of color Doppler images; and determining, by the at least one processor, the regurgitation degree of the target position based on the regurgitation speed. A review of the specification, however, does not describe the claimed subject matter in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without “undue experimentation.” Following factors were weighed in evaluating whether the disclosure satisfies the enablement required and whether any necessary experiment is “undue.” See In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
First, the breadth of claims 10-11 specifically includes determining, by at least one processor, a regurgitation degree of any target position based on the regurgitation information data graph comprising: determining, by the at least one processor, a regurgitation speed of the target position based on the regurgitation information of the plurality of color Doppler images; and determining, by the at least one processor, the regurgitation degree of the target position based on the regurgitation speed. A review of the specification, however, discloses that the target position is specifically a tricuspid valve, a mitral valve, or an aortic valve (see [0021], [0060] of the specification of the instant application). Therefore, a broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 10-11 includes at least determining a regurgitation degree of a target position based on a determined regurgitation speed of the target position, wherein the target position may be any target of interest – broader than the disclosure in the specification. See MPEP 2164.08.
Second, the nature of the invention is directed to a system for determining a regurgitation degree of a target position based on a determined regurgitation speed of the target position (see [0014]-[0015], [0082]). The specification specifically discloses determining the regurgitation degree, or severity, at a tricuspid valve, a mitral valve, or an aortic valve by determining the regurgitation speed relative to the heart valve and comparing the determined regurgitation to different thresholds (less than 150 cm/s, between 150 cm/s and 450 cm/s, and greater than 450 cm/s) to determine whether the regurgitation degree at the valve is mild, moderate, or severe (see [0015], [0082]).
Third, the state of the prior art existing at the filing date of the instant application does not include determining a regurgitation degree at a tricuspid valve, a mitral valve, or an aortic valve based on a determined regurgitation speed relative to the valve and a comparison of the determined regurgitation to different thresholds. One exemplary prior art includes Zoghbi et al. (Zoghbi et al. Recommendations for Noninvasive Evaluation of Native Valvular Regurgitation. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography. 2017 Apr; 30(4):303-371. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2017.01.007. A copy attached to this Office action.) explicitly discloses that “The velocity itself does not provide useful information about the volumetric severity of MR (mitral regurgitation)” (pg. 330 of Zoghbi et al.) and “It is important to note that TR jet velocity is not related to the volume of regurgitant flow. In fact, very severe TR is often associated with a low jet velocity (2 m/sec), with near equalization of RV and right atrial systolic pressures” (pg. 352 of Zoghbi et al.). Further, Otto et al. (Otto et al. 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2021 Feb; 143(5):e72-e227. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000923. A copy attached to this Office action) does not suggest any regurgitation speed based categorization of atrial, mitral, nor tricuspid valve regurgitation severity (see specifically “Valve Hemodynamics” columns in pg. e105: Table 15; pg. e121: Table 17; pg. e128: Table 18; and pg. e132: Table 20). Therefore, the state of the prior art existing at the filing date of the instant application does not include a regurgitation speed based categorization of a valvular regurgitation, and the specification of the instant application provides no details of the regurgitation speed being indicative of the severity of a valvular regurgitation.
Fourth, the level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the instant application is low. As disclosed by Zoghbi et al. and Otto et al. noted above for the state of the prior art, a regurgitation speed, especially alone, is not known in the art to be representative of the severity of a valvular regurgitation. Therefore, based on the specification of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize how the regurgitation speed is indicative of the severity of a valvular regurgitation.
Fifth, the level of predictability in the art to extrapolate the disclosed or known results to the claimed invention is very low. As disclosed by Zoghbi et al. and Otto et al. noted above, at the time of filing date of the instant application, various parameters are known in the art to be utilized in categorizing the severity of a valvular regurgitation: i.e., “Regurgitation severity may be difficult to assess, as it lacks a true gold standard and is influenced by hemodynamic conditions. Quantitative parameters include RVol, RF, and regurgitant orifice area.” (see pg. 318 of Zoghbi et al.); and “Categorization of MR severity as mild, moderate, or severe depends on data quality and integration of these parameters (see pg. e121: “Valve Hemodynamics” in Table 17) in conjunction with other clinical evidence” (see pg. e121 of Otto et al.). Therefore, one skilled in the art cannot readily anticipate utilizing the regurgitation speed, especially alone, to determine a degree of a valvular regurgitation.
Sixth, the amount of direction provided by the inventors in the instant application is very limited to necessitate undue experimentation. The specification merely discloses in [0015] and [0082] that the determined regurgitation speed is compared to specific thresholds of less than 150 cm/s, between 150 cm/s and 450 cm/s, and greater than 450 cm/s to determine whether the regurgitation degree is mild, moderate, or severe. Again, at the filing date of the instant application, the regurgitation speed is not known in the art to be a reliable indicator of the degree of regurgitation, as evidenced by Zoghbi et al. and Otto et al. noted above: “The velocity itself does not provide useful information about the volumetric severity of MR (mitral regurgitation)” (pg. 330 of Zoghbi et al.) and “It is important to note that TR jet velocity is not related to the volume of regurgitant flow. In fact, very severe TR is often associated with a low jet velocity (2 m/sec), with near equalization of RV and right atrial systolic pressures” (pg. 352 of Zoghbi et al.); and “Categorization of MR severity as mild, moderate, or severe depends on data quality and integration of these parameters (see pg. e121: “Valve Hemodynamics” in Table 17) in conjunction with other clinical evidence” (see pg. e121 of Otto et al.). Thus, an undue experimentation is necessary to enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention of determining the degree of regurgitation based on a regurgitation speed.
Seventh, the existence of working examples in the disclosure is very limited in satisfying the enablement requirement. Again, the specification merely discloses in [0015] and [0082] that the determined regurgitation speed is compared to specific thresholds of less than 150 cm/s, between 150 cm/s and 450 cm/s, and greater than 450 cm/s to determine whether the regurgitation degree is mild, moderate, or severe. In particular, the specification does not even provide any explanation for the comparison thresholds of less than 150 cm/s, between 150 cm/s and 450 cm/s, and greater than 450 cm/s in determining whether the regurgitation degree is mild, moderate, or severe. The specification provides no working examples of the determined regurgitation speed being indicative of a degree of regurgitation nor of the comparison thresholds of less than 150 cm/s, between 150 cm/s and 450 cm/s, and greater than 450 cm/s being a reliable metric for determining the degree of regurgitation.
Lastly, the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure is very high. Again, the specification of the instant application provides no details of the regurgitation speed being indicative of the severity of a valvular regurgitation nor the recited comparison thresholds of less than 150 cm/s, between 150 cm/s and 450 cm/s, and greater than 450 cm/s being a reliable metric for determining the degree of regurgitation. The specification does not provide any guidance with respect to the direction in which the experimentation should proceed, since as evidenced by at least Zoghbi et al. and Otto et al. noted above, the regurgitation speed is not known in the art to be a reliable indicator of a degree of regurgitation.
In conclusion, weighing all the factors listed above, the specification of the instant application fails the enablement requirement and necessitates undue experimentation for the claimed inventions of claims 10-11.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the determining, by the at least one processor, the regurgitation degree of the target position based on the regurgitation information data graph comprises …” The antecedent basis for “wherein the determining, by the at least one processor, the regurgitation degree of the target position based on the regurgitation information data graph” is unclear. In particular, claim 10 is recited to depend on claim 1, yet claim 2 instead recites determining, by the at least one processor, a regurgitation degree of the target position based on the regurgitation information data graph. Claim 11 inherits the deficiency by the nature of its dependency on claim 10. For purposes of the examination, claim 10 is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation to be dependent on claim 2, instead of claim 1.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, wherein the storage medium stores computer instructions, when the computer reads the computer instructions, the computer implements a method, the method comprising: …” It is unclear whether “the computer” recited in the limitation is a component of the claimed product of “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” or not. In particular, the recited method following the limitation in the claim is recited to be performed by the computer, when the claim itself is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions, wherein when the computer instructions are executed by a computer, the computer instructions cause the computer to: “.
Claim 20 recites the limitations “by the at least one processor”. The antecedent basis for these limitations are unclear. In particular, it is unclear whether the limitations are referring to “the computer” recited in the preamble of the claim or otherwise. For purposes of the examination, the limitations are being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “the computer”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bonnefous et al. (US PG Pub No. 2024/0366182, priority date of 17 Aug 2021) – hereinafter referred to as Bonnefous.
Regarding claim 1, Bonnefous discloses a system for monitoring regurgitation (at least Fig. 1 and [0049]-[0050]: calculate regurgitant flow associated with orifice in a patient's valve) comprising:
at least one storage device (Fig. 2: memory 264) including a set of instructions ([0068]: memory 264 storing instructions 266); and
at least one processor (Fig. 2: processor 260) in communication with at least one storage device ([0065]: processor circuit 210 includes processor 260 and memory 264 that are in direct or indirect communication with each other),
wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is directed to cause the system to perform operations ([0065]: memory 264 storing instructions 266 that when executed by the processor 260 cause the processor 260 to perform the operations) including:
determining, by the at least one processor, regurgitation information of a plurality of color Doppler images based on color Doppler data of a target position (Fig. 3: steps 345-355; [0140]-[0143]: compute flow volume and orifice area based on the adjusted 3D model from acquired 3D color Doppler data; [0072]: 3D color Doppler data of a mitral valve acquired over time); and
generating, by the at least one processor, a regurgitation information data graph based on the regurgitation information of the plurality of color Doppler images (Fig. 3: step 360 and [0144]: display results of generating, comparing, and adjusted virtual model of data for each ultrasound image frame in the systolic phase to the user; Fig. 22 and [0161]: plot 2200 provides the user of the system 100 with a graphical representation of both the regurgitant volume flow and orifice area of an orifice of a mitral valve throughout a systolic phase),
the regurgitation information data graph reflecting a correspondence between at least one frame number of at least one of the plurality of color Doppler images and the regurgitation information of the at least one color Doppler image (Fig. 22 and [0162]-[0166]: horizontal axis 2292 of plot 2200 refers to image frames and vertical axes 2290, 2294 refer to volume flow and orifice area, respectively).
Regarding claim 14, Bonnefous discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Bonnefous further discloses:
displaying, one of the at least one of the plurality of color Doppler images and the regurgitation information data graph simultaneously in the user interface (Fig. 19, 22 and [0146]: image 1900 includes all of these example images (including doppler data in Fig. 13, 16, 17; and plot 2200 of Fig. 22) together in a single image).
Regarding claim 15, Bonnefous discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Bonnefous further discloses:
wherein the regurgitation information comprises at least one of: a length of a regurgitation region, a width of the regurgitation region, an area of the regurgitation region (Fig. 3: step 345-355 and [0140]-[0141]: compute orifice area for any of the acquired ultrasound image), a direction of blood flow in the regurgitation region, or a speed of blood flow in the regurgitation region (Fig. 20-21: vectors 2040; [0159]-[0160]: color Doppler data 2050 shown shows movement of blood from the ventricle 2020 to atrium 2010, and relative velocity (speed and direction) of blood at various locations within the ventral shown by the length of the vectors 2040).
Regarding claim 16, Bonnefous discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Bonnefous further discloses:
wherein the regurgitation information data graph is obtained based on one or more color Doppler images selected from the plurality of color Doppler images (Fig. 22 and [0166]: points 2212, 2222 correspond to individual ultrasound image frames and user may add or remove any of points 2212 from the plot 2200), in each of the one or more color Doppler images, the regurgitation information is greater than a threshold (Fig. 22: curves 2210, 2220 are greater than 0, or positive volume flow or orifice area).
Regarding claim 17, Bonnefous discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Bonnefous further discloses:
wherein the target position includes at least one of: a tricuspid valve, a mitral valve (Fig. 4 and [0073]: mitral valve 430), or an aortic valve.
Regarding claim 18, Bonnefous discloses a method (at least Fig. 2-3) for monitoring regurgitation implemented on a computing device having at least one processor (Fig. 2: processor 260) and at least one computer-readable storage medium (Fig. 2: memory 264; [0049]-[0050]: calculate regurgitant flow associated with orifice in a patient's valve), the method comprising:
determining, by the at least one processor, regurgitation information of a plurality of color Doppler images based on color Doppler data of a target position (Fig. 3: steps 345-355; [0140]-[0143]: compute flow volume and orifice area based on the adjusted 3D model from acquired 3D color Doppler data; [0072]: 3D color Doppler data of a mitral valve acquired over time); and
generating, by the at least one processor, a regurgitation information data graph based on the regurgitation information of the plurality of color Doppler images (Fig. 3: step 360 and [0144]: display results of generating, comparing, and adjusted virtual model of data for each ultrasound image frame in the systolic phase to the user; Fig. 22 and [0161]: plot 2200 provides the user of the system 100 with a graphical representation of both the regurgitant volume flow and orifice area of an orifice of a mitral valve throughout a systolic phase),
the regurgitation information data graph reflecting a correspondence between at least one frame number of at least one of the plurality of color Doppler images and the regurgitation information of the at least one color Doppler image (Fig. 22 and [0162]-[0166]: horizontal axis 2292 of plot 2200 refers to image frames and vertical axes 2290, 2294 refer to volume flow and orifice area, respectively).
Regarding claim 20, Bonnefous discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Fig. 2: memory), wherein the storage medium stores computer instructions ([0068]: memory 264 storing instructions 266), when the computer reads the computer instructions, the computer implements a method ([0065]: memory 264 storing instructions 266 that when executed by the processor 260 cause the processor 260 to perform the operations), the method comprising:
determining, by the at least one processor, regurgitation information of a plurality of color Doppler images based on color Doppler data of a target position (Fig. 3: steps 345-355; [0140]-[0143]: compute flow volume and orifice area based on the adjusted 3D model from acquired 3D color Doppler data; [0072]: 3D color Doppler data of a mitral valve acquired over time); and
generating, by the at least one processor, a regurgitation information data graph based on the regurgitation information of the plurality of color Doppler images (Fig. 3: step 360 and [0144]: display results of generating, comparing, and adjusted virtual model of data for each ultrasound image frame in the systolic phase to the user; Fig. 22 and [0161]: plot 2200 provides the user of the system 100 with a graphical representation of both the regurgitant volume flow and orifice area of an orifice of a mitral valve throughout a systolic phase),
the regurgitation information data graph reflecting a correspondence between at least one frame number of at least one of the plurality of color Doppler images and the regurgitation information of the at least one color Doppler image (Fig. 22 and [0162]-[0166]: horizontal axis 2292 of plot 2200 refers to image frames and vertical axes 2290, 2294 refer to volume flow and orifice area, respectively).
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.
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 2-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnefous, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zoghbi et al. (Zoghbi et al. Recommendations for Noninvasive Evaluation of Native Valvular Regurgitation. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography. 2017 Apr; 30(4):303-371. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2017.01.007. A copy attached to this Office action.) – hereinafter referred to as Zoghbi.
Regarding claim 2, Bonnefous discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Bonnefous discloses, as noted above in claim 1:
the regurgitation information data graph including an orifice area (Fig. 22 and [0161]: plot 2200 provides the user of the system 100 with a graphical representation of both the regurgitant volume flow and orifice area of an orifice of a mitral valve throughout a systolic phase).
Bonnefous does not disclose:
determining, by the at least one processor, a regurgitation degree of the target position based on the regurgitation information data graph.
In the same field of ultrasound imaging of a regurgitation, Zoghbi, however, teaches:
determining a regurgitation degree of the target position based on the orifice area (pg. 327: b. Vena contracta (width and area): Vena contracta (VC) as a measure of regurgitant orifice, and direct measurement of VC area (VCA) > 0.4 cm^2 denoted as severe mitral regurgitation (MR)).
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 Bonnefous’s system to include Zoghbi’s method of determining a regurgitation degree. Zoghbi discloses a technique of manually determining a regurgitation degree of a target position based on a calculated orifice area, and Zoghbi’s technique is applicable to Bonnefous’s system for monitoring a regurgitation, since both Bonnefous and Zoghbi are directed to monitoring a regurgitation in a heart using ultrasound imaging. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that automating determination of a regurgitation degree by a processor based on a calculated orifice area from ultrasound imaging would be advantageous for automating a manual process. See MPEP 2144.04.III. and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would apply a known technique (in this case, Zoghbi’s technique of manually determining a regurgitation degree of a target position based on a calculated orifice area) to a known device (in this case, Bonnefous’s system for monitoring a regurgitation by calculating an orifice area) that was ready for improvement, and the results (in this case, a processor configured to determine a regurgitation degree of the target position based on the calculated orifice area included in the regurgitation information data graph) would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.I.D. The motivation for the modification would be for “evaluating the severity of MR (mitral regurgitation) with Doppler echocardiography”, as taught by Zoghbi (pg. 324: D. Doppler Methods of Evaluating MR Severity), automatically.
Regarding claim 3, Bonnefous in view of Zoghbi discloses all limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, and Zoghbi further teaches (also see claim 2 above):
wherein determining the regurgitation degree of the target position based on the orifice area comprises: determining the regurgitation degree of the target position based on a maximum value, an average value, or a weighted value of the regurgitation information in the orifice area (pg. 327: b. Vena contracta (width and area): Only highest velocity signal as a measurement of vena contracta area (VCA)).
Regarding claim 6, Bonnefous in view of Zoghbi discloses all limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, and Bonnefous does not disclose:
determining, by the at least one processor, a width of a regurgitation region of the target position based on the regurgitation information of the plurality of color Doppler images; and
determining, by the at least one processor, the regurgitation degree of the target position based on a ratio of the width of the regurgitation region of the target position to an inner diameter of the target position.
In the same field of ultrasound imaging of a regurgitation, Zoghbi, however, teaches:
determining a width of a regurgitation region of the target position based on the regurgitation information of the plurality of color Doppler images (pg. 336: a. Color flow Doppler: ratio of width of atrial regurgitation (AR) jet (regurgitation) to left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) diameter in centrally directed jets (regurgitation) obtained in pastrasternal long-axis view, just apical to the aortic valve); and
determining the regurgitation degree of the target position based on a ratio of the width of the regurgitation region of the target position to an inner diameter of the target position (pg. 336: a. Color flow Doppler: ratio of width of AR jet to LVOT diameter in centrally directed jets obtained to assess the severity of regurgitation).
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 Bonnefous’s system to include Zoghbi’s method of determining a width of a regurgitation region of the target position and a regurgitation degree based on a ratio of the width of the regurgitation region of the target position to an inner diameter of the target position. Zoghbi discloses a technique of manually determining a width of a regurgitation region of the target position and a regurgitation degree of a target position based on a calculated ratio of the width of the regurgitation region of the target position to an inner diameter of the target position, and Zoghbi’s technique is applicable to Bonnefous’s system for monitoring a regurgitation, since both Bonnefous and Zoghbi are directed to monitoring a regurgitation in a heart using ultrasound imaging. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that automating determination of a regurgitation degree by a processor based on a calculated ratio of the width of the regurgitation region of the target position to an inner diameter of the target position would be advantageous for automating a manual process. See MPEP 2144.04.III. and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would apply a known technique (in this case, Zoghbi’s technique of manually determining a width of a regurgitation region of the target position and a regurgitation degree of a target position based on a calculated ratio of the width of the regurgitation region of the target position to an inner diameter of the target position) to a known device (in this case, Bonnefous’s system for monitoring a regurgitation in a heart using ultrasound imaging) that was ready for improvement, and the results (in this case, a processor configured to determine a regurgitation degree of the target position based on a ratio of the width of the regurgitation region of the target position to an inner diameter of the target position) would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.I.D. The motivation for the modification would be “to assess the severity of regurgitation (at aortic valve)”, as taught by Zoghbi (pg. 326: a. Color flow Doppler), automatically.
Regarding claim 7, Bonnefous in view of Zoghbi discloses all limitations of claim 6, as discussed above, and Zoghbi further teaches (also see claim 6):
in response to determining that the ratio of the width of the regurgitation region of the target position to the inner diameter of the target position is in a range of 20%-40%, determining that the regurgitation degree of the target position is a mild regurgitation;
in response to determining that the ratio of the width of the regurgitation region of the target position to the inner diameter of the target position is in a range of 40%-60%, determining that the regurgitation degree of the target position is a moderate regurgitation; or
in response to determining that the ratio of the width of the regurgitation region of the target position to the inner diameter of the target position is greater than 60%, determining that the regurgitation degree of the target position is a severe regurgitation (pg. 336: 2. Doppler Methods. a. Color flow Doppler: Jet width in LVOT: width of AR jet compared with the LVOT diameter to assess the severity of regurgitation - a ratio of <25% indicating mild, 25%-64% indicating moderate, and >= 65% indicating severe).
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnefous, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Messing et al. (Messing et al. Mild tricuspid regurgitation: a benign fetal finding at various stages of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Oct; 26:606-610. doi: 10.1002/uog.1999. A copy attached to this Office action.) – hereinafter referred to as Messing.
Regarding claim 2, Bonnefous discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Bonnefous discloses, as noted above in claim 1:
the regurgitation information data graph including a blood flow (Fig. 22 and [0161]: plot 2200 provides the user of the system 100 with a graphical representation of both the regurgitant volume flow and orifice area of an orifice of a mitral valve throughout a systolic phase).
Bonnefous does not disclose:
determining, by the at least one processor, a regurgitation degree of the target position based on the regurgitation information data graph.
In the same field of ultrasound imaging of a regurgitation, Messing, however, teaches:
determining a regurgitation degree of the target position based on the blood flow (pg. 607-608: METHODS: tricuspid regurgitation (TR) was identified by color Doppler scanning, and pulse-wave Doppler was used to measure blood flow across the valve; TR was classified into severity).
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 Bonnefous’s system to include Messing’s method of determining a regurgitation degree. Messing discloses a technique of manually determining a regurgitation degree of a target position based on a blood flow, and Messing’s technique is applicable to Bonnefous’s system for monitoring a regurgitation, since both Bonnefous and Messing are directed to monitoring a regurgitation in a heart using ultrasound imaging. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that automating determination of a regurgitation degree by a processor based on a calculated orifice area from ultrasound imaging would be advantageous for automating a manual process. See MPEP 2144.04.III. and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would apply a known technique (in this case, Messing’s technique of manually determining a regurgitation degree of a target position based on a blood flow) to a known device (in this case, Bonnefous’s system for monitoring a regurgitation by a blood flow at an orifice) that was ready for improvement, and the results (in this case, a processor configured to determine a regurgitation degree of the target position based on the blood flow included in the regurgitation information data graph) would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.I.D. The motivation for the modification would be to categorize the tricuspid regurgitation (pg. 607-608 of Messing) automatically.
Regarding claim 4, Bonnefous in view of Messing discloses all limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, and Bonnefous does not disclose:
determining, by the at least one processor, a length of a regurgitation region of the target position based on the regurgitation information of the plurality of color Doppler images; and
determining, by the at least one processor, the regurgitation degree of the target position based on a ratio of the length of the regurgitation region of the target position to a length of the target position along a regurgitation direction.
In the same field of ultrasound imaging of a regurgitation, Messing, however, teaches:
determining a length of a regurgitation region of the target position based on the regurgitation information of the plurality of color Doppler images (pg. 608: Methods. The length of the jet into the RA was further classified into four degrees of severity: mild (length of jet < 1/3 of the distance to the opposite atrial wall); mild-to-moderate (length of jet between 1/3 and 2/3 of the distance to the opposite atrial wall); and severe (jet reaching the opposite atrial wall)); and
determining the regurgitation degree of the target position based on a ratio of the length of the regurgitation region of the target position to a length of the target position along a regurgitation direction (pg. 608: Methods. The length of the jet into the RA was further classified into four degrees of severity: mild (length of jet < 1/3 of the distance to the opposite atrial wall); mild-to-moderate (length of jet between 1/3 and 2/3 of the distance to the opposite atrial wall); and severe (jet reaching the opposite atrial wall)).
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 Bonnefous’s system to include Messing’s method of determining a length of a regurgitation region of the target position and a regurgitation degree based on the length of the regurgitation region of the target position and a length of the target position. Messing discloses a technique of manually determining a length of a regurgitation region of the target position and a regurgitation degree based on the length of the regurgitation region of the target position and a length of the target position, and Messing’s technique is applicable to Bonnefous’s system for monitoring a regurgitation, since both Bonnefous and Messing are directed to monitoring a regurgitation in a heart using ultrasound imaging. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that automating determination of a regurgitation degree by a processor based on a length of the regurgitation region of the target position and a length of the target position would be advantageous for automating a manual process. See MPEP 2144.04.III. and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would apply a known technique (in this case, Messing’s technique of manually determining a length of a regurgitation region of the target position and a regurgitation degree based on the length of the regurgitation region of the target position and a length of the target position) to a known device (in this case, Bonnefous’s system for monitoring a regurgitation by a blood flow at an orifice) that was ready for improvement, and the results (in this case, a processor configured to determine a length of a regurgitation region of the target position and a regurgitation degree based on the length of the regurgitation region of the target position and a length of the target position) would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.I.D. The motivation for the modification would be to classify a degree of the tricuspid regurgitation (pg. 607-608 of Messing) automatically.
Regarding claim 5, Bonnefous in view of Messing discloses all limitations of claim 6, as discussed above, and Messing further teaches (also see claim 4):
in response to determining that a ratio of the length of the regurgitation region of the target position to the length of the target position along the regurgitation direction is less than 1/3, determining, by the at least one processor, that the regurgitation degree of the target position is a mild regurgitation (pg. 608: Methods. The length of the jet into the RA was further classified into four degrees of severity: mild (length of jet < 1/3 of the distance to the opposite atrial wall)));
in response to determining that the ratio value of the length of the regurgitation region of the target position to the length of the target position along the regurgitation direction is in a range of 1/3-2/3, determining, by the at least one processor, that the regurgitation degree of the target position is a moderate regurgitation (pg. 608: Methods. The length of the jet into the RA was further classified into four degrees of severity: mild-to-moderate (length of jet between 1/3 and 2/3 of the distance to the opposite atrial wall)); and
in response to determining that the ratio value of the length of the regurgitation region of the target position to the length of the target position along the regurgitation direction is greater than 2/3, determining, by the at least one processor, that the regurgitation degree of the target position is a severe regurgitation (pg. 608: Methods. The length of the jet into the RA was further classified into four degrees of severity: severe (jet reaching the opposite atrial wall)).
Claims 2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnefous, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (Yang et al. Self-supervised learning assisted diagnosis for mitral regurgitation severity classification based on color Doppler echocardiography. Ann Transl Med 2022 Jan; 10(1):3. doi: 10.21037/atm-21-3449. A copy attached to this Office action.) – hereinafter referred to as Yang.
Regarding claim 2, Bonnefous discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Bonnefous discloses, as noted above in claim 1:
the regurgitation information data graph including an orifice area (Fig. 22 and [0161]: plot 2200 provides the user of the system 100 with a graphical representation of both the regurgitant volume flow and orifice area of an orifice of a mitral valve throughout a systolic phase).
Bonnefous does not disclose:
determining, by the at least one processor, a regurgitation degree of the target position based on the regurgitation information data graph.
In the same field of ultrasound imaging of a regurgitation, Yang, however, teaches:
determining a regurgitation degree of the target position based on the orifice area (pg. 4: Establishing ground truth reference standard for MR classification in the test dataset: confirm the presence, severity, and etiology of mitral regurgitation (MR) based on at least effective regurgitation orifice area (EROA)).
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 Bonnefous’s system to include Yang’s method of determining a regurgitation degree. Yang discloses a technique of manually determining a regurgitation degree of a target position based on a calculated orifice area, and Yang’s technique is applicable to Bonnefous’s system for monitoring a regurgitation, since both Bonnefous and Yang are directed to monitoring a regurgitation in a heart using ultrasound imaging. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that automating determination of a regurgitation degree by a processor based on a calculated orifice area from ultrasound imaging would be advantageous for automating a manual process. See MPEP 2144.04.III. and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would apply a known technique (in this case, Yang’s technique of manually determining a regurgitation degree of a target position based on a calculated orifice area) to a known device (in this case, Bonnefous’s system for monitoring a regurgitation by calculating an orifice area) that was ready for improvement, and the results (in this case, a processor configured to determine a regurgitation degree of the target position based on a length of the regurgitation region of the target position and a length of the target position) would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.I.D. The motivation for the modification would be for evaluating “the presence, severity, and etiology of MR (mitral regurgitation)”, as taught by Yang (pg. 4: D. Establishing ground truth reference standard for MR classification in the test dataset), automatically.
Regarding claim 8, Bonnefous in view of Yang discloses all limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, and Bonnefous does not disclose:
determining, by the at least one processor, an area of a regurgitation region of the target position based on the regurgitation information of the plurality of color Doppler images; and
determining, by the at least one processor, the regurgitation degree of the target position based on the area of the regurgitation region of the target position and an area of the target position.
In the same field of ultrasound imaging of a regurgitation, Yang, however, teaches:
determining an area of a regurgitation region of the target position based on the regurgitation information of the plurality of color Doppler images (Figure 3; pg. 4-5: Establishing ground truth reference standard for MR classification in the test dataset: measurement of central Doppler jet area relative to left atrium (LA) area); and
determining the regurgitation degree of the target position based on the area of the regurgitation region of the target position and an area of the target position (pg. 4: Establishing ground truth reference standard for MR classification in the test dataset: severity of MR (mitral regurgitation) determined based on central Doppler jet area relative to LA area).
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 Bonnefous’s system to include Yang’s method of determining an area of a regurgitation region of the target position and a regurgitation degree based on the area of the regurgitation region of the target position and an area of the target position. Yang discloses a technique of manually determining an area of a regurgitation region of the target position and a regurgitation degree based on the area of the regurgitation region of the target position and an area of the target position, and Yang’s technique is applicable to Bonnefous’s system for monitoring a regurgitation, since both Bonnefous and Yang are directed to monitoring a regurgitation in a heart using ultrasound imaging. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that automating determination of a regurgitation degree by a processor based on an area of the regurgitation region of the target position and an area of the target position would be advantageous for automating a manual process. See MPEP 2144.04.III. and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would apply a known technique (in this case, Yang’s technique of manually determining an area of a regurgitation region of the target position and a regurgitation degree based on the area of the regurgitation region of the target position and an area of the target position) to a known device (in this case, Bonnefous’s system for monitoring a regurgitation in a heart using ultrasound imaging) that was ready for improvement, and the results (in this case, a processor configured to determine a regurgitation degree of the target position based on an area of the regurgitation region of the target position and an area of the target position) would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.I.D. The motivation for the modification would be to evaluate “the presence, severity, and etiology of MR (mitral regurgitation)”, as taught by Yang (pg. 4: D. Establishing ground truth reference standard for MR classification in the test dataset), automatically.
Regarding claim 9, Bonnefous in view of Yang discloses all limitations of claim 8, as discussed above, and Yang further teaches (also see claim 8 above):
in response to determining that the area of the regurgitation region is less than 3cm^2 or a ratio of the area of the regurgitation region to the area of the target position is less than 20%, determining, by the at least one processor, that the regurgitation degree of the target position is a mild regurgitation (pg. 4: Establishing ground truth reference standard for MR classification in the test dataset: severity of MR (mitral regurgitation) determined based on central Doppler jet area - mild MR defined as <20% LA (left atrium));
in response to determining that the area of the regurgitation region is in the range of 3cm^2 - 4.5cm^2 or the ratio of the area of the regurgitation region to the area of the target position being in the range of 20% - 50%, determining, by the at least one processor, that the regurgitation degree of the target position is a moderate regurgitation (pg. 4: Establishing ground truth reference standard for MR classification in the test dataset: severity of MR (mitral regurgitation) determined based on central Doppler jet area - moderate MR defined as central MR jet area of 20%-50% of LA area); and
in response to determining that the area of the regurgitation region is greater than 4.5 cm^2 or the ratio of the area of the regurgitation region to the area of the target position is greater than 50%, determining, by the at least one processor, that the regurgitation degree of the target position is a severe regurgitation (pg. 4: Establishing ground truth reference standard for MR classification in the test dataset: severity of MR (mitral regurgitation) determined based on central Doppler jet area - severe MR defined as central MR jet area > 50%).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnefous, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shaw et al. (US Patent No. 11545267) – hereinafter referred to as Shaw.
Regarding claim 12, Bonnefous discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Bonnefous does not disclose:
generating, by the at least one processor, a regurgitation warning signal based on the regurgitation degree of the target position.
In the same field of ultrasound imaging of a regurgitation, Shaw, however, teaches:
generating, by at least one processor, a regurgitation warning signal based on the regurgitation degree of the target position (Fig. 5D: regurgitation/insufficiency assessments 522, 524 as "abnormal"; Col 17, lines 34-50).
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 Bonnefous’s system to include Shaw’s method of generating a regurgitation warning signal based on a regurgitation degree. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., generating by a processor the regurgitation warning, as disclosed by Shaw), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Bonnefous and Shaw are directed to analyzing ultrasound images of a regurgitation. The motivation for the combination would have been to automatically “evaluate a set of conditions associated with an animal (given an ultrasound image)”, as taught by Shaw (Abstract).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnefous, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Viggen et al. (US PG Pub No. 2018/0344292) – hereinafter referred to as Viggen.
Regarding claim 13, Bonnefous discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Bonnefous further discloses:
the at least one processor responsive to an interaction between a user and the regurgitation information data (Fig. 22 and [0166]: user can add or remove points 2212, 2222 along the curve of plot 2200; [0165]: each curve based on measured volume flow and orifice area of each ultrasound image).
Bonnefous does not disclose:
displaying, by the at least one processor, a color Doppler image of the target position according to the interaction,
regurgitation information of the color Doppler image being displayed on the color Doppler image.
In the same field of ultrasound imaging of a regurgitation, Viggen, however, teaches:
displaying, by at least one processor, a color Doppler image of the target position according to the interaction between a user and the regurgitation information data graph (Fig. 4-6 and [0040]-[0043]: user selects via a user interface input device a cycle out of all of the traced cycles of the Doppler spectrum 204 and Doppler spectrum 204 and measurement parameter display 214 are updated based on the user selection; [0031]: 2D Doppler image 208 representing where blood flow velocities shown in Doppler spectrum 204 are measured);
regurgitation information of the color Doppler image being displayed on the color Doppler image (Fig. 4-6: measurement parameter display 214 and 2D Doppler image 208).
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 Bonnefous’s system to include Viggen’s method of displaying a color Doppler image including a regurgitation information according to a user input. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., displaying by a processor a color Doppler image including a regurgitation information according to a user input, as disclosed by Viggen), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Bonnefous and Viggen are directed to analyzing ultrasound images of a regurgitation. The motivation for the combination would have been to allow a user input in “automatically calculating and displaying the individual cycle measurement parameters” in diagnosing a patient ([0041] of Viggen).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnefous, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Zoghbi.
Regarding claim 19, Bonnefous discloses all limitations of claim 18, as discussed above, and Bonnefous discloses, as noted above in claim 18:
the regurgitation information data graph including an orifice area (Fig. 22 and [0161]: plot 2200 provides the user of the system 100 with a graphical representation of both the regurgitant volume flow and orifice area of an orifice of a mitral valve throughout a systolic phase).
Bonnefous does not disclose:
determining, by the at least one processor, a regurgitation degree of the target position based on the regurgitation information data graph.
In the same field of ultrasound imaging of a regurgitation, Zoghbi, however, teaches:
determining a regurgitation degree of the target position based on the orifice area (pg. 327: b. Vena contracta (width and area): Vena contracta (VC) as a measure of regurgitant orifice, and direct measurement of VC area (VCA) > 0.4 cm^2 denoted as severe mitral regurgitation (MR)).
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 Bonnefous’s method to include Zoghbi’s method of determining a regurgitation degree. Zoghbi discloses a technique of manually determining a regurgitation degree of a target position based on a calculated orifice area, and Zoghbi’s technique is applicable to Bonnefous’s method for monitoring a regurgitation, since both Bonnefous and Zoghbi are directed to monitoring a regurgitation in a heart using ultrasound imaging. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that automating determination of a regurgitation degree by a processor based on a calculated orifice area from ultrasound imaging would be advantageous for automating a manual process. See MPEP 2144.04.III. and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would apply a known technique (in this case, Zoghbi’s technique of manually determining a regurgitation degree of a target position based on a calculated orifice area) to a known method (in this case, Bonnefous’s method for monitoring a regurgitation by calculating an orifice area) that was ready for improvement, and the results (in this case, determining, by a processor, a regurgitation degree of the target position based on the calculated orifice area included in the regurgitation information data graph) would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.I.D. The motivation for the modification would be for “evaluating the severity of MR (mitral regurgitation) with Doppler echocardiography”, as taught by Zoghbi (pg. 324: D. Doppler Methods of Evaluating MR Severity), automatically.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ionasec et al. (US PG Pub No. 2014/0052001) discloses identifying a degree of regurgitation based on color Doppler images (at least Fig. 5 and [0085]); and
Thiele et al. (US PG Pub No. 2015/0148679) discloses identifying and highlighting a regurgitation in color Doppler images (at least Fig 7-8).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Younhee Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-7013. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/Y.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
01/11/26