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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 31 and 33-34 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.
With respect to claim 31, the scope of the claim is unclear as the claim merely recites a preamble without a claim body. The claim merely recites intended use of the processor and fails to set forth any instructions or algorithms.
With respect to claims 33-34, the scope of the claims are unclear. The claim fails to recite any gerund or active method steps.
With respect to claim 33, the scope of the claim is unclear. The wherein clause contradicts the determining step as the step recites it comprises the second physical quantity.
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 1-9, 11-14, 16-28, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining blood flow field information without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method for determining blood flow field information comprising obtaining vascular segment image data regarding a target vascular segment; determining at least one blood flow field information for the target vascular segment based on the vascular segment image data, through a pre-trained neural network, wherein determining the at least one blood flow field information comprises obtaining, based on the vascular segment image data and through the pre-trained neural network, prediction values of a first physical quantity and a second physical quantity in a blood flow field corresponding to the target vascular segment, wherein the prediction values of the first physical quantity and the second physical quantity satisfy at least one fluid dynamics constraint condition, and wherein the at least one blood flow field information comprises the prediction value of the first physical quantity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, performing well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, and recite the concepts of gathering and evaluating data which can be performed as a mental step or on pen and paper. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the use of a pre-trained neural network (i.e., deep learning, data processing, and/or computer algorithm) is well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, amounting to no more than the judicial exception. The additional of general purpose computer components, data processing, or deep learning alone to perform such steps is not sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patentable invention. The general components (i.e. neural network) are recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions that would be needed to apply the abstract idea via a computer. Merely using generic components to perform the above identified basic computer functions to practice or apply the judicial exception does not constitute a meaningful limitation that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2-9, 11-14, 16-28, and 33-34 are dependent upon claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-9, 11-14, 16-28, and 33-34 recites the same abstract idea of gathering and evaluating data which can be performed as a mental step or on pen and paper. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps recite mathematical operations and/or additional data evaluation steps that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, recited at a high level of generality amounting to no more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13, 15-23, 28, 30-31, and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tran et al. (US 2018/0243033).
Tran et al. discloses a method for determining blood flow field information, comprising: obtaining vascular segment images regarding a target vascular segment ([0025]; [0028]; [0072]); and determining at least one blood flow field information for the target vascular segment based on the vascular segment images ([0031-0035]; [0086-0088]), through a pre-trained neural network ([0082]). With respect to the wherein clauses, Tran et al. discloses obtaining prediction values for metrics of interest (e.g., FFR, sensitivity, etc.; [0057]).
With respect to claims 2-4, Tran et al. discloses at least one type of blood flow field information corresponds to human medical information ([0031-0035]).
With respect to claims 5-6, Tran et al. discloses lesion information ([0033]; [0037-0041]).
With respect to claims 7-8, Tran et al. discloses Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) information ([0021]; [0031]).
With respect to claims 9, 22, and 28, Tran et al. discloses a prediction interval ([0049]; [0069]) and additional blood flow field information ([0021]).
With respect to claims 11-13, Tran et al. discloses pressure field, flow speed, and flow rate ([0021]).
With respect to claims 16-17, Tran et al. discloses lesion information ([0033]; [0037-0041]).
With respect to claim 18, Tran et al. discloses a prediction interval ([0049]; [0069]).
With respect to claim 19, Tran et al. discloses lesion information ([0033]; [0037-0041]).
With respect to claims 20-21, Tran et al. discloses a pre-trained neural network ([0082-0083]).
With respect to claim 23, Tran et al. discloses FFR ([0021]; [0032]).
With respect to claims 30-32, Tran et al. discloses a memory ([0082]), a processor ([0007]; [0048]); and a computer program ([0008]).
With respect to claim 33, Tran et al. discloses metrics of interest based on at least one fluid dynamics constraint condition ([0023]).
With respect to claim 34, Tran et al. discloses branches ([0038]; [0044]).
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran et al. (US 2018/0243033) in view of Min et al. (US 2021/0319558).
Tran et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for a straightening process. However, Min et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor teaches a straightening process for vasculature is well known for easy tracking along the length of the vessel ([0350]; [0357]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Tran et al. with a straightening process as taught by Min et al. as it is well known in the art to provide straighten view of curvilinear vessels for easy tracking ([0350]; [0357]).
Claim(s) 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran et al. (US 2018/0243033).
Tran et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for an updated prediction value and subsequent vascular segments. However, a repetition of steps is well within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Tran et al. to update and repeat the method for subsequent segments of the vasculature as a duplication of steps is well within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejection under 35 USC 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the use of a pre-trained neural network (i.e., deep learning, data processing, and/or computer algorithm) is well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, amounting to no more than the judicial exception. The additional of general purpose computer components, data processing, or deep learning alone to perform such steps is not sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patentable invention. The general components (i.e. neural network) are recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions that would be needed to apply the abstract idea via a computer. Merely using generic components to perform the above identified basic computer functions to practice or apply the judicial exception does not constitute a meaningful limitation that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Furthermore, the claim merely recites the use of a pre-trained neural network to obtain prediction values of a first and second physical quantity, which is interpreted to further recite the concept of gathering data.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejections under 35 USC 102 have been considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the reference does not disclose a blood flow field physical quantity. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Applicant has failed to set forth a special definition or meaning for the term “blood flow field” therefore claim terminology is given its broadest reasonable interpretation. In this case, in a blood flow field is interpreted to mean relating to the field of blood flow. Therefore, the reference discloses quantity values which are related to blood flow, including blood flow characteristics (e.g., FFR, pressure, flow rate, velocity, etc).
Applicant argues the values are not obtained through the pre-trained neural network. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Tran et al. discloses the machine learning algorithm is for predicting various other metrics of interest (e.g., FFR, sensitivity, etc.; [0057]).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 PETER LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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 T 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.
/PETER LUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights