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
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of priority from Foreign Application No. KR10-2023-0049665, filed April 14, 2023.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-12, 15 and 17-26 are pending. Claims 4-5, 7, 13-14 and 16 have been canceled. Claims 18-26 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 10, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 101 abstract idea rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One because the claims are characterized at an impermissibly high level of generality and that because the amended claims recite specific technical steps that delineate how the claimed improvement is achieved, they do not recite an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. When determining whether the claim recites an abstract idea, the Examiner construes the claims in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation (see MPEP 2106.04(II)). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the amended claims, Examiner asserts that one having ordinary skill in the art could map a standard blood flow velocity to ECG data such that a cycle of the blood flow matches a heart rate cycle, determine a blood flow velocity by determining a distance between a first point in a blood vessel where a contrast agent reaches in a first image and a second point in a blood vessel where the contrast agent reaches in a second image, determine a time interval between the capture of the first image and the capture of the second image, use the distance and time to calculate velocity, and apply a correction factor to the blood flow velocity that is determined based on ECG data and a standard blood flow velocity. Each limitation is a step that could be performed by a human either mentally or manually using mathematical concepts, and therefore the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Applicant further argues that the claims are not an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong Two because they are directed to an improvement in medical technology and therefore are integrated into practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in MPEP 2106.04(II), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner asserts that in the amended claims, the judicial exception is not integrated into practical application because the steps of “receiving a plurality of medical images depicting a target blood vessel”, “receiving electrocardiogram data of an object of measurement” and “displaying an indication of the corrected blood flow velocity” are merely considered to be extra-solution activity of gathering and outputting information and do not integrate the aforementioned mathematical calculation into practical application, as described in the 35 USC 101 rejection below. Thus, the claim is directed to the judicial exception because the additional elements do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception.
Applicant further argues that the claims provide an inventive concept at Step 2B and are therefore not an abstract idea because the combination of elements is not well-understood, routine or conventional. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As recited in MPEP 2106.05, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/limitations to perform the recited steps, amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, and the 35 USC 101 abstract idea rejections are maintained.
With regards to the 35 USC § 102 rejection of claim 1, applicant argues the claims as amended are not taught by the immediate prior art and the claim(s) should not be rejected under 35 USC § 102. Applicant’s remarks and amendments have been fully considered and are found convincing, however, upon further search and consideration, the newly discovered prior art document, referenced in the updated rejection below, teaches the limitations as claimed. Please see below for full rejection. Accordingly, applicant’s amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103 and this action is made final.
Applicant further argues that at least by virtue of their dependence on independent claims 1, 9 and 10, dependent claims 2-3, 6, 8, 11-12, 15, and 17-26 are allowable. However, as described in the 35 USC 103 rejections below, the independent claims are taught by the newly presented Ma prior art reference, and each dependent claim, including newly added claims 18-26 are taught by a combination of the prior art references. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 103, and consequently, THIS ACTION IS FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-12, 15 and 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium for correcting a blood flow velocity calculation. Consider method claim 1:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claim is directed to a method or a process; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, the limitations “mapping standard blood flow velocity data to the electrocardiogram data such that a cycle of the standard blood flow velocity data matches a heart rate cycle of the electrocardiogram data, wherein the standard blood flow velocity data is data that is standardized based on at least one of: age, gender, race, height, weight, obesity (BMI), blood pressure, or smoking status of the object of measurement”, “determining, using the plurality of medical images, a blood flow velocity of the target blood vessel, wherein the determining the blood flow velocity of the target blood vessel comprises: determining a distance between a first point in the target blood vessel where a contrast agent reaches in the first medical image and a second point in the target blood vessel where the contrast agent reaches in the second medical image”, “determining a time interval between a time associated with the first medical image being captured and a time associated with the second medical image being captured”, “determining, using the determined distance and the determined time interval, the blood flow velocity of the target blood vessel”, and “correcting, based on the electrocardiogram data and the standard blood flow velocity data of the target blood vessel, the blood flow velocity” as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations manually and in the mind of a person. That is, a user or person skilled in the art may map a standard blood flow velocity to ECG data such that a cycle of the blood flow matches a heart rate cycle, determine a blood flow velocity by determining a distance between a first point in a blood vessel where a contrast agent reaches in a first image and a second point in a blood vessel where the contrast agent reaches in a second image, determine a time interval between the capture of the first image and the capture of the second image, use the distance and time to calculate velocity, and apply a correction factor to the blood flow velocity that is determined based on ECG data and a standard blood flow velocity. This is the concept that falls under the grouping of abstract ideas mathematical concepts, i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional step or a combination of additional steps in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional steps of “receiving a plurality of medical images depicting a target blood vessel”, “receiving electrocardiogram data of an object of measurement” and “displaying an indication of the corrected blood flow velocity” is considered to be extra-solution activity of gathering and outputting information. In addition, with respect to the system and computer-readable medium claims of claims 9 and 10, the mere recitation of a generic processor, memory, or storage medium to perform/store programming instructions of the recited/identified abstract idea does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the above-mentioned additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and therefore, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claims fail under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/limitations to perform the recited steps, amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 10 are not patent eligible. In addition, claims 2-3, 6, 8, 11-12, 15 and 17-26 of the instant application provide limitations that both individually or in combination do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
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 1-3, 8-12, 17, 20-22 and 25 -26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schormans et al. (US 11,694,339 B2) in view of Ma et al. (US 9,984,465 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Schormans teaches a method for correcting blood flow velocity, the method being performed by one or more processors and comprising:
receiving a plurality of medical images depicting a target blood vessel, wherein the plurality of medical images comprise a first medical image and a second medical image (Schormans, Col. 8, lines 56-65, a start frame A and end frame B are selected (i.e., first medical image and a second medical image). Col. 9, lines 8-18, the embodiment uses X-ray angiographic image analysis to determine average blood velocity in a targeted blood vessel or vessel of interest. Therefore, subtraction angiographic frames (i.e., medical images depicting a target blood vessel) and ECG signal corresponding with the X-ray angiographic image run are preferred for the optimal performance of the blood velocity determination method);
receiving electrocardiogram data of an object of measurement (Schormans, Col. 9, lines 8-18, the embodiment uses X-ray angiographic image analysis to determine average blood velocity in a targeted blood vessel or vessel of interest. Therefore, subtraction angiographic frames and ECG signal corresponding with the X-ray angiographic image run (i.e., electrocardiogram data of an object of measurement) are preferred for the optimal performance of the blood velocity determination method);
mapping standard blood flow velocity data to the electrocardiogram data such that a cycle of the standard blood flow velocity data matches a heart rate cycle of the electrocardiogram data (Schormans, Col. 13, lines 30-39, plotting in a graph for example all
v
l
o
c
a
l
values calculated using for instance a single frame difference between frame A and frame B subsequent for all the frames within a full cardiac cycle, represents the velocity change during the cardiac cycle as contrast agent propagates through the target vessel, further known as ‘full velocity profile’. This results in a generic full profile f(x) for one heart cycle matched to the generic ECG signal (i.e., electrocardiogram data)),
determining, using the plurality of medical images, a blood flow velocity of the target blood vessel (Schormans, Col. 12, lines 36-60, given the contrast agent presence in both frames, this is combined with the time interval between the frames to generate a velocity in the blood vessel between the two marked endpoints:
v
l
o
c
a
l
=
s
2
-
s
1
t
2
-
t
1
where
v
l
o
c
a
l
is the velocity measured over the vessel segment between the contrast fronts in the given input frames);
wherein the determining the blood flow velocity of the target blood vessel comprises:
determining a distance between a first point in the target blood vessel where a contrast agent reaches in the first medical image and a second point in the target blood vessel where the contrast agent reaches in the second medical image (Schormans, Col. 12, lines 34-53,
v
l
o
c
a
l
=
s
2
-
s
1
t
2
-
t
1
, where
s
1
is the distance measured in the first frame (frame A),
s
2
is the distance measured in the second frame (frame B) (i.e.,
s
2
-
s
1
is the distance the contrast travelled between the first point and second point);
determining a time interval between a time associated with the first medical image being captured and a time associated with the second medical image being captured (Schormans, Col. 12, lines 34-53,
v
l
o
c
a
l
=
s
2
-
s
1
t
2
-
t
1
,
t
1
is the timestamp of the start of acquisition of the first frame, and
t
2
is the timestamp of the start of acquisition of the second frame (i.e.,
t
2
-
t
1
is the time interval between first medical image being captured and second medical image being captured)); and
determining, using the determined distance and the determined time interval, the blood flow velocity of the target blood vessel (Schormans, Col. 12, lines 34-53,
v
l
o
c
a
l
=
s
2
-
s
1
t
2
-
t
1
, where
v
l
o
c
a
l
is the velocity measured over the vessel segment between the contrast fronts in the given input frames);
correcting, based on the electrocardiogram data and the standard blood flow velocity data of the target blood vessel, the blood flow velocity (Schormans, Col. 13 line 50 – Col. 14 line 43, in different sections of the heart phase the
v
l
o
c
a
l
value can therefore be an over- or under estimation as related to the average blood velocity of the patient. Therefore, the
v
l
o
c
a
l
needs to be corrected to an average velocity value
v
m
e
a
n
over an entire heart cycle (22 within FIG. 9). For this translation method (FIG. 1, S5), the generic full velocity profile is used. The full velocity profiles can be obtained from different patients for instance through a database and have corresponding ECG signals (i.e., standard blood flow velocity data of the target blood vessel). The correlation factor is based on a normalized integral over the part of the heart cycle covered:
c
f
=
∫
0
1
f
(
x
)
/
∫
s
t
a
r
t
e
n
d
f
(
x
)
e
n
d
-
s
t
a
r
t
where f(x) represents the generic full velocity profile and start and end are the start and end frame times within the normalized heart cycle [0,1]. The interval spanned between the start and end frame can be linked to an interval relative to the detected R peaks (i.e., based on electrocardiogram data). The average velocity can then be calculated as:
v
m
e
a
n
=
v
l
o
c
a
l
c
f
(i.e., correcting the blood flow velocity)); and
displaying an indication of the corrected blood flow velocity (Schormans, Col. 8, line 26-28, the user interface module can include different kinds of input and output devices, such as a display screen for visual output. Claim 1, displaying information to a user, wherein the information characterized blood flow in the blood vessel, and wherein the information is based on at least one of the local flow velocity and the average flow velocity (i.e., corrected blood flow velocity)).
Although Schormans teaches mapping a generic velocity profile (Schormans, Col. 13, lines 30-39), Schormans does not explicitly teach “wherein the standard blood flow velocity data is data that is standardized based on at least one of: age, gender, race, height, weight, obesity (BMI), blood pressure, or smoking status of the object of measurement”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Ma teaches a set boundary condition that may include blood pressure, blood velocity, flow resistance, pressure, intensity, stress, etc. The user or the parameter setting unit 520 may set a boundary condition or select a boundary condition from the database of boundary conditions based on the object's features (Ma, Col. 16 line 53 – Col. 17 line 9). The object's features may include heart rate, heart rhythm, blood pressure, blood velocity, blood viscosity, cardiac output, myocardial mass, vascular flow resistance, and other object's features related to the blood vessel, the issue or the organ. The object's features may also include age, height, weight, gender, or other features of the object (Ma, Col. 13 line 57 – Col. 14 line 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Schormans with the teachings of Ma by including determining a set boundary condition that may include blood velocity (i.e., standard blood flow velocity data) based on the object’s features such as age, height, weight, gender, etc. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for analyzing blood flow conditions to determine a condition of the blood vessel, as recognized by Ma. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 2, Schormans in view of Ma teaches the method according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the correcting the blood flow velocity comprises:
determining a correction factor for correcting the blood flow velocity of the target blood vessel (Schormans, Col. 13 line 50 – Col. 14 line 43, the correlation factor (i.e., correction factor) is based on a normalized integral over the part of the heart cycle covered:
c
f
=
∫
0
1
f
(
x
)
/
∫
s
t
a
r
t
e
n
d
f
(
x
)
e
n
d
-
s
t
a
r
t
where f(x) represents the generic full velocity profile and start and end are the start and end frame times within the normalized heart cycle [0,1]. The interval spanned between the start and end frame can be linked to an interval relative to the detected R peaks); and
applying the correction factor to the blood flow velocity of the target blood vessel so as to correct the blood flow velocity (Schormans, Col. 13 line 50 – Col. 14 line 43, the average velocity can then be calculated as:
v
m
e
a
n
=
v
l
o
c
a
l
c
f
(i.e., applying the correction factor to the blood flow velocity)).
Regarding claim 3, Schormans in view of Ma teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of medical images comprise a first medical image and a second medical image, and
the determining the correction factor comprises:
determining, from the standard blood flow velocity data, a first average velocity of a standard blood flow velocity of the target blood vessel, wherein the first average velocity is based on an average value per heart rate cycle of the object of measurement (Schormans, Col. 13 line 50 – Col. 14 line 43, a generic full profile f(x) for one heart cycle matched to the generic ECG signal (i.e., f(x) is the first average velocity));
determining a second average velocity that is based on an average value of a standard blood flow velocity of the target blood vessel between a time associated with the first medical image and a time associated with the second medical image (Schormans, Col. 13 line 50 – Col. 14 line 43, the correlation factor (i.e., correction factor) is based on a normalized integral over the part of the heart cycle covered:
c
f
=
∫
0
1
f
(
x
)
/
∫
s
t
a
r
t
e
n
d
f
(
x
)
e
n
d
-
s
t
a
r
t
(i.e.,
∫
s
t
a
r
t
e
n
d
f
(
x
)
is the second average velocity between a time associated with the first medical image and a time associated with the second medical image)); and
determining, using the first average velocity and the second average velocity, the correction factor (Schormans, Col. 13 line 50 – Col. 14 line 43, the correlation factor (i.e., correction factor) is based on a normalized integral over the part of the heart cycle covered:
c
f
=
∫
0
1
f
(
x
)
/
∫
s
t
a
r
t
e
n
d
f
(
x
)
e
n
d
-
s
t
a
r
t
).
Regarding claim 8, Schormans in view of Ma teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the target blood vessel is one of right coronary artery (RCA), left anterior descending artery (LAD), or left circumflex artery (LCX) (Schormans, Col. 10, lines 23-57, for the different coronary arteries (e.g., left coronary artery, right coronary artery, coronary circumflex, etc.) the moment of minimal coronary velocity can occur at a different moment within the cardiac cycle. By using specific delays, it is possible to enable optimal contrast injection specific for the coronary artery of interest (i.e., coronary artery of interest is left coronary artery, right coronary artery, or coronary circumflex)).
Regarding claim 20, Schormans in view of Ma teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the correction factor is determined by dividing the first average velocity by the second average velocity (Schormans, Col. 13 line 50 – Col. 14 line 43, the correlation factor (i.e., correction factor) is based on a normalized integral over the part of the heart cycle covered:
c
f
=
∫
0
1
f
(
x
)
/
∫
s
t
a
r
t
e
n
d
f
(
x
)
e
n
d
-
s
t
a
r
t
(i.e., f(x) is the first average velocity and
∫
s
t
a
r
t
e
n
d
f
(
x
)
e
n
d
-
s
t
a
r
t
is the second average velocity)).
Regarding claim 22, Schormans in view of Ma teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the standard blood flow velocity data corresponds to one of:
data that stores blood flow velocity values at each of a plurality of positions on a cycle, wherein the plurality of positions includes a ¼ cycle, a ½ cycle, or a ¾ cycle, or data according to a blood flow velocity function (Schormans, Col. 13 line 50 – Col. 14 line 43, for this translation method (FIG. 1, S5), the generic full velocity profile is used. The full velocity profiles can be obtained from different patients for instance through a database and have corresponding ECG signals (i.e., standard blood flow velocity data of the target blood vessel).
Claim 9 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Schormans and Ma references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the Schormans and Ma references discloses a computer readable storage medium (Schormans, Col. 23, lines 48-56, code embodied on a non-transitory machine-readable medium).
Claims 10-14, 17 and 25-26 recite systems with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claims 1-5, 8, 20 and 22, respectively. Therefore, the recited elements of these claims are mapped to the proposed reference in the same manner as the corresponding steps in their corresponding method claims. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Schormans and Ma references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to these claims. Finally, the Schormans and Ma references discloses a communication interface, a memory, and a processor (Col. 24, lines 52-the example computer system includes a processor, a main memory and a network interface device).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schormans et al. (US 11,694,339 B2) in view of Ma et al. (US 9,984,465 B1), as applied to claims 1-3, 8-12, 17, 20-22 and 25 -26, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0151579 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Schormans in view of Ma teaches the method according to claim 5, as described above.
Although Schormans in view of Ma teaches determining a time interval between the first medical image and second medical image (Schormans, Col. 12, lines 34-53), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the time interval is determined based on, within the plurality of medical images, a number of frames between the first medical image and the second medical image, and a number of frames per second”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Liu teaches determining an average blood flow velocity using
V
h
=
L
N
/
f
p
s
, where L represents a length of the blood vessel through which a contrast agent flows in the heartbeat cycle region; N represents the number of frames of the coronary angiogram images contained in the heartbeat cycle region; and fps represents the number of frames transmitted per second (i.e., time interval is determined based on number of frames in the cycle and a number of frames per second) (Liu, Equation [00001] and Paras. [0023]-[0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Schormans in view of Ma with the teachings of Liu by including determining the time interval based on the number of frames in the cycle and the number of frames transmitted per second. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for evaluating a function state of artery circulation, as recognized by Liu. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 15 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 6. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Schormans, Ma and Liu references, presented in rejection of Claim 6, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Schormans, Ma and Liu references discloses a communication interface, a memory, and a processor (Schormans, Col. 24, lines 52-the example computer system includes a processor, a main memory and a network interface device).
Claims 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schormans et al. (US 11,694,339 B2) in view of Ma et al. (US 9,984,465 B1), as applied to claims 1-3, 8-12, 17, 20-22 and 25 -26, and further in view of Fang et al. (US 2023/0245772 A1, filed November 29, 2022).
Regarding claim 18, Schormans in view of Ma teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the standard blood flow velocity data is selected from a blood flow velocity data set based on information on the object of measurement (Ma, Col. 16 line 53 – Col. 17 line 9, the user or the parameter setting unit 520 may set a boundary condition or select a boundary condition from the database of boundary conditions based on the object's features).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Schormans and Ma references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 18 and are incorporated herein by reference.
Although Schormans in view of Ma teaches setting the standard based on the object’s features (Ma, Col. 16 line 53 – Col. 17 line 9), they do not explicitly teach “wherein data from the blood flow velocity data set having a largest amount of meta information matching the information on the object of measurement is selected as the standard blood flow velocity data”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Fang teaches that for each group subject, the matched healthy control group subject (i.e., standard blood flow velocity data) was selected with the identical combination of gender and age (i.e., largest amount of meta information matching the information on the object of measurement) (Fang, Para. [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Schormans in view of Ma with the teachings of Fang by including selecting a standard blood flow velocity data based on the largest amount of meta information matching information on the object of measurement. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for eliminating subject-dependent bias, as recognized by Fang. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 23 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 18. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Schormans, Ma and Fang references, presented in rejection of Claim 18, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Schormans, Ma and Fang references discloses a communication interface, a memory, and a processor (Schormans, Col. 24, lines 52-the example computer system includes a processor, a main memory and a network interface device).
Claims 19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schormans et al. (US 11,694,339 B2) in view of Ma et al. (US 9,984,465 B1), as applied to claims 1-3, 8-12, 17, 20-22 and 25 -26, and further in view of Schmidt et al. (US 2023/04104123 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Schormans in view of Ma teaches the method of claim 1, as described above.
Although Schormans in view of Ma teaches setting the standard based on the object’s features (Ma, Col. 16 line 53 – Col. 17 line 9), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the standard blood flow velocity data is a standardized value calculated from pre-measured blood flow velocity data of certain subjects different from the object of measurement”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Schmidt teaches an appropriate standard can be determined (e.g., determined in parallel with a test measurement) or can be pre-existing (e.g., a historical value, etc.) (i.e., pre-measured). The appropriate standard or control can be the blood flow velocity and/or coagulation of blood obtained from a subject who is identified as not having the condition or disease. An “appropriate standard” is a parameter, value or level indicative of a known outcome, status or result (e.g., a known disease or condition status). For example, an appropriate standard may be the flow or adherence characteristic of a blood cell obtained from a subject known to have a disease, or a subject identified as being disease-free (i.e., pre-measured blood flow velocity data of certain subjects different from the object of measurement) (Schmidt, Paras. [0125]-[0126]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Schormans in view of Ma with the teachings of Schmidt by including the standard blood flow velocity is data that is standardized based on presence or absence of cardiovascular disease. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for measuring blood flow velocity for disease detection, as recognized by Schmidt. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 24 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 19. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Schormans, Ma and Schmidt references, presented in rejection of Claim 19, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Schormans, Ma and Schmidt references discloses a communication interface, a memory, and a processor (Schormans, Col. 24, lines 52-the example computer system includes a processor, a main memory and a network interface device).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schormans et al. (US 11,694,339 B2) in view of Ma et al. (US 9,984,465 B1), as applied to claims 1-3, 8-12, 17, 20-22 and 25 -26, and further in view of Kamada et al. (US 2016/0262638 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Schormans in view of Ma teaches the method of claim 2, as described above.
Although Schormans in view of Ma teaches applying the correction factor (Col. 13 line 50 – Col. 14 line 43), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the applying the correction factor comprises multiplying the blood flow velocity of the target blood vessel by the correction factor to determine the corrected blood flow velocity”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Kamada teaches an electromagnetic blood flow meter correction formula
B
F
m
l
m
i
n
=
K
b
f
*
r
B
F
where a relative blood flow (rBF) is converted to the quantitative blood flow (BF) that is “flowing per unit tissue” (Kamada, Paras, [0103]-[0104]). Kbf is the quantification conversion coefficient (i.e., correction factor) (Kamada, Para. [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Schormans in view of Ma with the teachings of Kamada by including multiplying the blood flow velocity by the correction factor (i.e., quantification conversion coefficient Kbf) to obtain corrected blood flow velocity. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for calculating blood flow based on image analysis, as recognized by Kamada. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 Emma Rose Goebel whose telephone number is (703)756-5582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571) 272-3382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Emma Rose Goebel/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights