DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Reply filed 05 May 2026 included claim amendments and replacement figures that overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection and the drawing objection.
This Reply also included amendments to the GUI that necessitated new grounds of prior art rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Sakaguchi’s gradation bar 6 is not a line overlaid on the longitudinal view along the longitudinal axis at portions of the longitudinal view corresponding to frames for which the plaque burden is less than the threshold amount. Rather, Sakaguchi discloses a gradation bar whose display state may be changed to indicate the degree of plaque burden relative to a threshold. ¶¶ [0052], [0054], [0057]-[0058]. Sakaguchi’s FIGS. 5-9 illustrate gradation bar 6 in connection with longitudinal tomographic image 5, but the cited gradation bar is not a line overlaid on the longitudinal view at only those portions corresponding to frames for which plaque burden is less than the threshold amount.
Even to the extent the Examiner considers Sakaguchi’s gradation bar 6 to be displayed with or over a portion of the longitudinal tomographic image, Sakaguchi still does not disclose the claimed line overlaid on the longitudinal view at portions of the longitudinal view corresponding to frames for which plaque burden is less than the threshold amount. A gradation bar that changes color, lightness, hue, saturation, or another display characteristic to convey plaque-burden information is not the same as a line overlaid on the longitudinal view at the claimed sub-threshold frame portions. The distinction is not merely one of terminology. The amended claims require that the graphical component itself be a line and that the line be overlaid on the longitudinal view along the longitudinal axis at portions corresponding to frames satisfying the claimed plaque-burden threshold condition. Sakaguchi’s gradation bar 6 does not disclose this arrangement. Accordingly, Sakaguchi does not disclose the claimed graphical component as amended.
In response, the gradation bar 6 is most certainly “overlaid on the longitudinal view along the longitudinal axis at portions of the longitudinal view corresponding to frames for which the plaque burden is less than the threshold amount”. See Figs. 5-9 illustrating graphical presentations including graphical components (gradation bar 6) indicating the plaque burden as further discussed in [0052]-[0058]. Figure 9 (copied below) clearly illustrates this point as does [0054] stating that the “diagnostic imaging device displays, on the upper side of the longitudinal tomographic image 5, the gradation bar 6 …along the [longitudinal] axis”.
Furthermore, the gradation bar 6 is most certainly a straight (e.g. not curved) and otherwise linearly arranged graphical element. See Figs. 5-9.
Even further, the gradation bar 6 has colors (colored line segments) corresponding to frames for which the plaque burden is less than the threshold amount as per [0057] in which a warm color (e.g. orange line segment) is used for a region of the bar 6 corresponding to frames for which the plaque burden greater than a threshold and (e.g. a white color line segment) is used for a region of the bar 6 corresponding to frames for which the plaque burden less than a threshold. As such, the linearly arranged bar 6 has colored bar/line segments including white bar/line segments that are “overlaid on the longitudinal view along the longitudinal axis at portions of the longitudinal view corresponding to frames for which the plaque burden is less than the threshold amount”.
Therefore, the issue boils down to whether a linearly arranged bar segment is considered a “line”. In essence, the difference is one of degree and not kind. In short, a thick line such as Sakaguchi’s bar segment is still considered a “line” within the plain and ordinary meaning of that term.
Assuming, in arguendo, that a linearly arranged bar segment 6 (aka a thick line) is not considered a “line” it 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 to have modified Sakaguchi’s graphical user interface which already includes a graphical component which is a linearly arranged bar 6 having colored bar segments including white bar segments (thick lines) that are “overlaid on the longitudinal view along the longitudinal axis at portions of the longitudinal view corresponding to frames for which the plaque burden is less than the threshold amount” such that this linearly arranged bar is displayed with a smaller line thickness such that the graphical element more closely resembles a narrower definition of a “line” because Sakaguchi describes this graphical element as “rod-like” which is consistent with a “line”; because Sakaguchi specifically motivates using other shaped objects “as long as the object appropriately indicates the magnitude of plaque burden” in [0057], because changing line thickness is a change in degree and not of kind; because there is a reasonable expectation of success given that changing line thickness is a trivial operation in and of itself and would convey the same information to the end user; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of visualizing vessel measurements from a series of IVUS images.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 4, 5, 6, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 5, 6, 1, 14, 12, 1, 17, 18, and 22, respectively of copending Application No. 18/466,587 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application teaches generating graphical component comprising an indication of calcium in the vessel while the instant claims are directed to generating graphical components comprising an indication of the plaque burden. The term “plaque burden” is a generic term than encompasses indications of calcium in the vessel because plaque burden is partly determined by or otherwise includes calcified deposits within the plaque burden in the vessel. Moreover, the invention is directed to graphical user interfaces for displaying data using graphical components such that it 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 to have modified the reference application’s claimed generating graphical components comprising an indication of the calcium in the vessel and receive indications of an amount of calcium in the vessel to apply to the more generic generating graphical components comprising an indication of the plaque burden and to
receive indications of plaque burden in the vessel because the more specific calcium in the vessel teaches or at least suggests the generic plaque burden, because there is a reasonable expectation of success, and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Furthermore, to the extent the claims differ from the reference claims see the prior art rejections below which are incorporated by reference herein to supplement the reference claims and demonstrate obviousness of the rejected claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant failed to show support in their instant specification for any of the amended claim features submitted 05 May 2026 including those relating to the ““a minimum lumen area (MLA) indicator identifying a frame of the plurality of frames having a minimum lumen area of the vessel” as recited in amended independent claims 1, 13, and 18. Such failure is in direct contradiction to the requirements of MPEP 2163(II)(A) and 2163.04.
Furthermore, the support for these limitations is not apparent. The instant specification merely refers to a “minimum region 528” in, for example, [0081] of the instant specification as published but does not clearly relate this region 528 to the lumen area of the vessel. Nor does the specification determine the area or minimum area of any element whatsoever including the area or minimum area of the lumen. Thus, the amended limitations relating to the MLA are not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 11, 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi (US 2023/0245307 A1) and Gopinath (US 20240057870 A1).
Claim 1
In regards to claim 1, Sakaguchi discloses a computing apparatus for a medical device, comprising:
a processor {see Figs. 1, 2, 3 including server 1 and control units 11, 21, [029]-[0030], [0037]-[0042]};
an interface coupled to the processor, the interface to couple to an intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) device {Fig. 1, 2, 3 including communication unit 13, 23, Network N and diagnostic imaging device 2 which is an IVUS device as per [0032]-[0033]}; and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory comprising instructions executable by the processor {Figs. 1-3 including main storage unit 12, [0038]-[0039] including memory and software}, which when executed the processor cause the computing apparatus to:
receive a series of IVUS images of a vessel of a patient from the IVUS device, the series of IVUS images comprising a plurality of frames {see Fig. 4 illustrating IVUS image frame being received by the calculation model 51 residing in the processor as per [0044]-[0045]. Device 2 includes IVUS as further discussed in [0032]-[0033]. Further as to series of IVUS images see [0045], [0050] processing each of the plurality of IVUS frames},
receive, for each of the plurality of frames, an indication of plaque burden in the vessel {Fig. 4 calculation model extracts a feature amount that includes plaque burden that is used/received by device 2 as per [0045]-[0051]},
generate a graphical component comprising an indication of the plaque burden respective to a threshold amount {see Figs. 5-9 illustrating graphical presentations including graphical components (gradation bar 6) indicating the plaque burden as further discussed in [0052]-[0058]. As to threshold amounts, note that the color, lightness, hue saturation of the gradation bar 6 may be used to indicate degree of plaque burden including relative to a threshold (e.g. 50%) with a warm/orange color indicating above threshold and white for below threshold}
generate a GUI comprising a longitudinal view of the vessel and the graphical component configured to indicate the detected plaque burden along a longitudinal axis of the vessel, and render the GUI for display on a display {Figs. 5-9, [0052]-[0058] and explanation above clearly disclosing longitudinal view and graphical components along longitudinal axis as claimed},
wherein the graphical component comprises a line overlaid on the longitudinal view along the longitudinal axis at portions of the longitudinal view corresponding to frames for which the plaque burden is less than the threshold amount
{the gradation bar 6 is shown below and is described as a “rod-like object representing the magnitude of the plaque burden”, [0054] and that “the gradation bar 6 is an example of the object, and any object may be used as long as the object appropriately indicated the magnitude of the plaque burden” [0056].
Furthermore, the gradation bar 6 is most certainly “overlaid on the longitudinal view along the longitudinal axis at portions of the longitudinal view corresponding to frames for which the plaque burden is less than the threshold amount”. See Figs. 5-9 illustrating graphical presentations including graphical components (gradation bar 6) indicating the plaque burden as further discussed in [0052]-[0058].
Figure 9 (copied below) clearly illustrates this point as does [0054] stating that the “diagnostic imaging device displays, on the upper side of the longitudinal tomographic image 5, the gradation bar 6 …along the [longitudinal] axis”.
PNG
media_image1.png
622
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, the gradation bar 6 is most certainly a straight (e.g. not curved) and otherwise linearly arranged graphical element. See Figs. 5-9.
Even further, the gradation bar 6 has colors (colored line segments) corresponding to frames for which the plaque burden is less than the threshold amount as per [0057] in which a warm color (e.g. orange line segment) is used for a region of the bar 6 corresponding to frames for which the plaque burden greater than a threshold and (e.g. a white color line segment) is used for a region of the bar 6 corresponding to frames for which the plaque burden less than a threshold. As such, the linearly arranged bar 6 has colored bar/line segments including white bar/line segments that are “overlaid on the longitudinal view along the longitudinal axis at portions of the longitudinal view corresponding to frames for which the plaque burden is less than the threshold amount”.
Therefore, the issue boils down to whether a linearly arranged bar segment is considered a “line”. In essence, the difference is one of degree and not kind. In short, a thick line such as Sakaguchi’s bar segment is still considered a “line” within the plain and ordinary meaning of that term.
Assuming, in arguendo, that a linearly arranged bar segment 6 (aka a thick line) is not considered a “line” it 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 to have modified Sakaguchi’s graphical user interface which already includes a graphical component which is a linearly arranged bar 6 having colored bar segments including white bar segments (thick lines) that are “overlaid on the longitudinal view along the longitudinal axis at portions of the longitudinal view corresponding to frames for which the plaque burden is less than the threshold amount” such that this linearly arranged bar is displayed with a smaller line thickness such that the graphical element more closely resembles a narrower definition of a “line” because Sakaguchi describes this graphical element as “rod-like” which is consistent with a “line”; because Sakaguchi specifically motivates using other shaped objects “as long as the object appropriately indicates the magnitude of plaque burden” in [0057], because changing line thickness is a change in degree and not of kind; because there is a reasonable expectation of success given that changing line thickness is a trivial operation in and of itself and would convey the same information to the end user; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of visualizing vessel measurements from a series of IVUS images.
Gopinath is analogous art from the same field of generating GUIS for IVUS images, see [0015] in which the disclosure applies and ingests image data from various related modalities including OCT, IVUS, OFDI and others and includes GUI elements including calcium, proximal and distal brackets, lumen boundary, angiography images and co-registration indication as per [0024].
Gopinath also teaches
wherein the longitudinal view comprises a minimum lumen area (MLA) indicator identifying a frame of the plurality of frames having a minimum lumen area of the vessel {see [0127] minimum lumen diameter wherein diameter and area are considered to be equivalent particulary given the known Area = Pi (D/2)^2 for a object having a circular cross section such as a vessel of a patient}. and
at least one key frame measurement (KFM) indicator positioned along the longitudinal axis at a selected frame of the plurality of frames and displaying a measurement associated with the vessel at the selected frame {although the instant specification does not include the acronym “KFM” or the term “key frame measurement indicator” but [0079]-[0081] includes what appears to be the corresponding disclosure of “ key frame markers” which are indicatd with brackets. Gopinath teaches such brackets including LZ markers and US markers which may be moved/selected by the user, markers for minimu lumen diameter (all of which are KFM or key frame markers) and displaying a measurement associated with the vessel at the selected frame such as EEL diameters/raddii calcium angle, mximum thickness, lumen area as per Figs. 2A-D, 3A-C, 5A-C, 7B, 8, [0046], [0083], [0086]-[0095], [0102]-[0106],, [0113]-[0115], [0127]-[0129]}.
It 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 to have modified Sakaguchi’s graphical user interface which already includes a graphical component comprises an indication of a distal bracket, a proximal bracket, a minimum region, a vessel profile view, and wherein the vessel profile view comprises a graphical representation of a vessel border and a lumen border of the vessel along the longitudinal axis such that the graphical component also includes wherein the longitudinal view comprises a minimum lumen area (MLA) indicator identifying a frame of the plurality of frames having a minimum lumen area of the vessel, and at least one key frame measurement (KFM) indicator positioned along the longitudinal axis at a selected frame of the plurality of frames and displaying a measurement associated with the vessel at the selected frame as taught by Gopinath because such graphical elements aid the end user (e.g. doctor or patient) to better understand the vessel of the patient for diagnostic and treatment (e.g. stent placement); because there is a reasonable expectation of success; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 2
In regards to claim 2, Sakaguchi discloses wherein the graphical component is a first graphical component, the instructions, when executed by the processor further cause the computing apparatus to:
generate a second graphical component comprising the longitudinal view of the vessel; and generate the GUI comprising the first graphical component and the second graphical component {Figs. 5-9, [0052]-[0058] including particularly longitudinal tomographic image 5, [0052]-[0053]. See also the cites and explanations above for above for claim 1}.
Claim 3
In regards to claim 3, Sakaguchi discloses the instructions, when executed by the processor further cause the computing apparatus to
overlay the first graphical component over a portion of the second graphical component to indicate the plaque burden along the longitudinal axis of the vessel component {Figs. 5-9, [0052]-[0058] including particularly overlay of gradation bar 6 over a portion of longitudinal tomographic image 5 to indicate plaque burden as claimed, [0052]-[0053]. See also the cites and explanations above for above for claim 1}.
Claim 4
In regards to claim 4, Sakaguchi discloses wherein the first graphical component comprises a line disposed along a portion of the longitudinal axis of the vessel {Figs. 5-9 illustrate such lines including the gradation bar 6 itself and the lines in the central part of the vessel. See also the cites and explanations above for above for claim 1 regading a “line”}.
Claim 5
In regards to claim 5, Sakaguchi discloses the instructions, when executed by the processor further cause the computing apparatus to:
identify, for each of the plurality of frames, whether the plaque burden is less than a threshold level {Fig. 4 model extracts a feature amount that includes plaque burden that is used/received by device 2 as per [0045]-[0051]. Further as to threshold see [0055]-[0057], [0061]-[0064]};
overlay the line over portions of the second graphical component associated with the ones of the plurality of frames where the plaque burden is less than the threshold level
{See Figs. 5-9, [0052]-[0058]. As to threshold amounts, note that the overlayed color, lightness, hue, saturation, etc. of the gradation bar 6 may changed to indicate degree of plaque burden including relative to a threshold (e.g. 50%) with a warm/orange color overlay indicating above threshold and white overlay color for below threshold and that this graphical element (gradation bar 6). See also the cites and explanations above for above for claim 1}.
Claim 11
In regards to claim 12, Sakaguchi discloses inputting cross-section views of each of the frames to generate the longitudinal view of the vessels, Sakaguchi is not relied upon to disclose the graphical components related to these cross-section views as recited in claim 11.
Gopinath is analogous art from the same field of generating GUIS for IVUS images, see [0015] in which the disclosure applies and ingests image data from various related modalities including OCT, IVUS, OFDI and others and includes GUI elements including calcium, proximal and distal brackets, lumen boundary, angiography images and co-registration indication as per [0024].
Gopinath also teaches the instructions, when executed by the processor further cause the computing apparatus to:
generate a third graphical component comprising a cross-section view of a one of the plurality of frames; and generate the GUI comprising the first graphical component, the second graphical component, and the third graphical component, wherein the GUI comprises an angiographic image of the vessel
{see [0024]-[0028], Fig. 3C (copied below), [0002]-[0008], [0024]-[0026], [0036], [0045]-[0049], [0054], [0058]-[0062], [0087]-[0091], [0104]-[0107], [0127], [0135]. See also Fig. 2F, 4A-C, 5B}
PNG
media_image2.png
612
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It 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 to have modified Sakaguchi’s graphical user interface which already includes a graphical component comprises an indication of a distal bracket, a proximal bracket, a minimum region, a vessel profile view, and wherein the vessel profile view comprises a graphical representation of a vessel border and a lumen border of the vessel along the longitudinal axis such that the graphical component also generate a third graphical component comprising a cross-section view of a one of the plurality of frames; and
generate the GUI comprising the first graphical component, the second graphical component, and the third graphical component, wherein the GUI comprises an angiographic image of the vessel as taught by Gopinath because Gopinath motivates such a graphical presentation helps a user visualize the artery relative to angiography that is co-registered and help deploy a stent or balloon and that modifying Sakaguchi’s graphical user interface to include an cross-section view and a GUI that includes an angiographic image of the vessel would similarly benefit; because there is a reasonable expectation of success; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 13-15; and 18-20
The rejection of apparatus claims 1, 2+3, 4+5; and 1, 2, and 3 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of machine-readable storage device claims 13-15 and method claims 18-20, respectively while noting that the rejection above cites to both device and method disclosures. For the computer readable storage medium storing program limitations of claim 10 see Sakaguchi’s Figs. 1-3 including main storage unit 12, [0038]-[0039] including memory and software executed by processors (server 1 and control units 11, 21, [029]-[0030], [0037]-[0042])}. The notation above, e.g. “2+3”, indicates that claim 14 is a combination of parallel claims 2 and 3 written in a different claim format.
Claims 6-9, 10, 12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi and Gopinath as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, and further in view of Tu (US 2021/0298706 A1).
Claim 6
In regards to claim 6, Sakaguchi discloses wherein the second graphical component comprises an indication of a distal bracket, a proximal bracket, a minimum region, a vessel profile view, and
PNG
media_image3.png
516
784
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
652
754
media_image4.png
Greyscale
}
Sakaguchi is not relied upon to disclose displaying a graphical component that includes a mirror of the vessel profile view.
Tu is analogous art from the same field of IVUS image processing and generating graphical displays of vessels. See abstract, Figs. 1-4, 11, [0001], [0086],
Tu also teaches displaying a graphical component that includes a mirror of the vessel profile view {see Figs. 7-10, [0149], [0156]}.
It 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 to have modified Sakaguchi’s graphical user interface which already includes a graphical component comprises an indication of a distal bracket, a proximal bracket, a minimum region, a vessel profile view, and wherein the vessel profile view comprises a graphical representation of a vessel border and a lumen border of the vessel along the longitudinal axis such that the graphical component also includes and a mirror of the vessel profile view as taught by Tu because Tu motivates such a graphical presentation in order to present a display which provides vial feature information of the two dimensional sections of the blood vessel in a mutual fusion manner, and where the display simulates the shape of the two-dimensional section of the blood vessel so that the specifications of the blood vessel can be displayed more intuitively as described by Tu ([0149]) and that modifying Sakaguchi’s graphical user interface to include different forms for displaying the plaque/calcium in relation to the blood vessel, including by using a mirrored format of the diagnostic information would similarly benefit; because there is a reasonable expectation of success; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 7
In regards to claim 7, Sakaguchi discloses wherein the distal bracket comprises one of a plurality of bracket graphical representations selected based on the location of the distal bracket relative to the plaque burden and the threshold level {see above mappings {See Figs. 5-9, [0052]-[0058] while noting that the color, lightness, hue, saturation, etc. of the gradation bar 6 is selected based on and to indicate degree of plaque burden including relative to a threshold (e.g. 50%)}.
Claim 8
In regards to claim 6, Sakaguchi discloses the instructions, when executed by the processor further cause the computing apparatus to:
identify a location of the distal bracket; determine whether the distal bracket is associated with a frame of the plurality of frames where the plaque burden is less than the threshold level; and select a first one of the plurality of bracket graphical representations based on a determination that the distal bracket is associated with a frame of the plurality of frames where the plaque burden is less than the threshold level; or select a second one of the plurality of bracket graphical representations based on a determination that the distal bracket is not associated with a frame of the plurality of frames where the plaque burden is less than the threshold level.
{See Figs. 5-9, [0052]-[0058] in which for each (identified) location/segment of the gradation bar 6, the method determines whether to change the display color (select graphical representation) based on and to indicate degree of plaque burden for that corresponding longitudinal image 5 with a warm/orange color indicating above threshold (second graphical representation) and white for below threshold (first graphical representation)}
Claim 9
In regards to claim 9, Sakaguchi discloses wherein the proximal bracket comprises one of a plurality of graphical representations selected based on the location of the proximal bracket relative to the plaque burden and the threshold level {See Figs. 5-9, [0052]-[0058] while noting that the color, lightness, hue, saturation, etc. of the gradation bar 6 is selected based on and to indicate degree of plaque burden including relative to a threshold (e.g. 50%)}.
Claim 10
In regards to claim 10, Sakaguchi discloses the instructions, when executed by the processor further cause the computing apparatus to:
identify a location of the proximal bracket; determine whether the proximal bracket is associated with a frame of the plurality of frames where the plaque burden is less than the threshold level; and select a first one of the plurality of bracket graphical representations based on a determination that the proximal bracket is associated with a frame of the plurality of frames where the plaque burden is less than the threshold level; or selecting a second one of the plurality of bracket graphical representations based on a determination that the proximal bracket is not associated with a frame of the plurality of frames where the plaque burden is less than the threshold level.
{See Figs. 5-9, [0052]-[0058] in which for each (identified) location/segment of the gradation bar 6, the method determines whether to change the display color (select graphical representation) based on and to indicate degree of plaque burden for that corresponding longitudinal image 5 with a warm/orange color indicating above threshold (second graphical representation) and white for below threshold (first graphical representation)}
Claim 12
In regards to claim 12, Sakaguchi discloses the IVUS imaging device {Device 2 includes IVUS as further discussed in [0032]-[0033]}.
Claims 16-17
The rejection of apparatus claims 6 and 7+8 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of machine-readable storage device claims 16-17, respectively while noting that the rejection above cites to both device and method disclosures. For the computer readable storage medium storing program limitations of claims 16-17 see Sakaguchi’s Figs. 1-3 including main storage unit 12, [0038]-[0039] including memory and software executed by processors (server 1 and control units 11, 21, [029]-[0030], [0037]-[0042])}. The notation above, e.g. “7+9”, indicates that claim 17 is a combination of parallel claims 7 and 8 written in a different claim format.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cohen (US 20230190227 A1) is a highly relevant publication that anticipates (e.g. X type reference) many of the claimed features including generating a graphical component comprising an indication of the plaque burden respective to a threshold amount and generating a GUI comprising a longitudinal view of the vessel and the graphical component configured to indicate the detected plaque burden along a longitudinal axis of the vessel, and render the GUI for display on a display. See Figs. 8, 10, copied below, and corresponding disclosure in the specification.
PNG
media_image5.png
386
616
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
428
596
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
398
540
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Cammarata whose telephone number is (571)272-0113. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-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, Matthew Bella can be reached at 571-272-7778. 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.
/MICHAEL ROBERT CAMMARATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights