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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: image acquisition unit and information determination unit in claim 29.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “image acquisition unit” and “information determination unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, the structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim, or no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
With respect to claims 30-32, the scope of the claims are unclear as the claims merely recite a preamble without a claim body.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 30-32 recites dependency to claim 1 but fails to set forth any further limitations. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-28 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 images regarding a target vascular segment; and determining at least one blood flow field information for the target vascular segment based on the vascular segment images, through a pre-trained neural network. 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 2-28 are dependent upon claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-28 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 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed subject matter is directed towards a computer program product which does not constitute a statutory process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter. The claimed subject matter merely involves insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering/processing; the additional element (s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the computer program product amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer and/or recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
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, and 28-32 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 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 10-13, Tran et al. discloses pressure field, flow speed, and flow rate ([0021]).
With respect to claim 15, Tran et al. discloses a pre-trained neural network ([0082-0083]).
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 claim 29, Tran et al. discloses an image acquisition unit for obtaining vascular images regarding a target vascular segment ([0025]); and an information determination unit for determining at least one blood flow field information for the target segment based on the vascular segment images ([0026]), through a pre-trained neural network ([0082]).
With respect to claims 30-32, Tran et al. discloses a memory ([0082]), a processor ([0007]; [0048]); and a computer program ([0008]).
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)).
Conclusion
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