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
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application with application number KR10-2023-0105223 dated 11 August 2023. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs dated 13 August 2024 and 10 February 2026 have been considered and placed in the application file.
Specification - Drawings
Acknowledgement is made of the color drawings submitted 11 August 2024 in this application. Applicants are reminded that, absent a successful petition, the black and white drawings submitted on 11 August 2024 will be used. No petition is currently on file.
Claim Interpretation
Under MPEP 2143.03, "All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claims 4-7 and 13-16 recite “at least one of” or “or” or “ranging up to.” Since these are disjunctive, any one of the elements found in the prior art is sufficient to reject the claim. While citations have been provided for completeness and rapid prosecution, only one element is required. Because, on balance, it appears the disjunctive interpretation enjoys the most specification support and for that reason the disjunctive interpretation (one of A, B OR C) is being adopted for the purposes of this Office Action. Applicant’s comments and/or amendments relating to this issue are invited to clarify the claim language and the prosecution history.
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- 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process using images/ drawings (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, prediction, etc.), and mathematical calculations for likelihood/ probability (e.g., - P(A) = f / N Where P(A) = Probability of an event (event A) occurring; f = Number of ways an event can occur (frequency); N = Total number of outcomes possible).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such.
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1 and 10 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
YES. Claim 1 is directed to a method, i.e., process, and claim 10 is directed to an apparatus i.e., a machine.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e., abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claim 1, for example, comprises a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind therefore, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites:
obtaining structural information of pulmonary vessels based on anatomical structure features of the pulmonary vessels from a medical image based on segmentation results of a pulmonary vascular region of the medical image;
obtaining pulmonary embolism finding information in the pulmonary vessels of the medical image;
visualizing the structural information of the pulmonary vessels in accordance with hierarchical information; and
visualizing the pulmonary embolism finding information in association with individual sub-regions of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels visualized in accordance with the hierarchical information.
These limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person could look at medical images, recognize the structure and record it on a piece of paper and then fill in recognized pulmonary embolism information. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a processor (e.g., processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mental step which could be performed with a simple tool such as a pen and paper, then it falls within the “mental steps” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Thus, Claims 1- 16 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Thus, since Claims 1 and 10 are/is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, claims 1 and 10 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101. Similar analysis is made for the dependent claims 2-9 and 11-16 and the dependent claims are similarly identified as: being directed towards an abstract idea, not reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and not reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 10-11 (all claims except 3-9 and 12-16) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication 2019 0244347 A1, (Buckler et al.).
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Buckler et al. disclose a method of visualizing structural information of pulmonary vessels in medical images ("Imaging is especially valuable because it provides spatially- and temporally-localized anatomic and functional information, using non- or minimally invasive methods," paragraph [0004]), the method comprising:
obtaining structural information of pulmonary vessels based on anatomical structure features of the pulmonary vessels from a medical image based on segmentation results of a pulmonary vascular region of the medical image ("Vessel structural measurements, specifically those that lead to the determination of% stenosis, have long been and remain the single most used measurements in patient care," paragraph [0164]);
obtaining pulmonary embolism finding information in the pulmonary vessels of the medical image ("Efficient workflow solutions with automated measurement of structure and quantification of tissue composition and/or hemodynamics may be used to characterize patients at higher risk, who would be treated differently from those who are not. If we tie characteristics of plaque morphology to embolic potential," paragraph [0016] where embolic potential teaches pulmonary embolism);
visualizing the structural information of the pulmonary vessels in accordance with hierarchical information ("FIG. 38 is a schematic depiction of the multiple cross-sections that may be processed to provide a dynamic analysis across the entire scanned vessel tree, illustrating the relationships between cross-sections and where the processing of one depends on its neighbors, according to the present disclosure," paragraph [0134] and "The studies stress the importance of complete characterization and assessment of the entire coronary tree, instead of just the culprit lesion, to allow more accurate risk stratification, which suitably analyzed CCTA can do." paragraph [0050]); and
visualizing the pulmonary embolism finding information in association with individual sub-regions of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels visualized in accordance with the hierarchical information ("The sample patient report may further include visualizations 340, e.g., 2D and/or 3D visualizations of imaging data as well as combined visualizations of non-imaging data such as hemodynamic data overlaid onto imaging data. Various analytics 350 may be displayed for assessing the biological parameters/ analytes including, e.g., a visualization of one or more model(s) (e.g., a decision tree model) for determining/ characterizing pathology," paragraph [0161]).
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2, Buckler et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the pulmonary embolism finding information visualized in each of the individual sub-regions of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels includes quantitative information about a possibility of a pulmonary embolism diagnosis for each sub-region of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels ("Vessel structural measurements, specifically those that lead to the determination of % stenosis, have long been and remain the single most used measurements in patient care," paragraph [0164] where % stenosis is a quantitative measure).
Claim 10
Regarding Claim 10, Buckler et al. disclose an apparatus for visualizing structural information of pulmonary vessels in medical images ("Imaging is especially valuable because it provides spatially- and temporally-localized anatomic and functional information, using non- or minimally invasive methods," paragraph [0004]), the apparatus comprising:
memory configured to store one or more instructions ("Generally, a processor receives instructions and data from a read-only memory or a random access memory or both," paragraph [0398]); and
a processor configured to load the one or more instructions from the memory and execute the one or more instructions ("Processors suitable for the execution of a computer program include, by way of example, both general and special purpose microprocessors, and any one or more processors of any kind of digital computer," paragraph [0398]);
wherein the processor, by executing the one or more instructions, is configured to:
obtain structural information of pulmonary vessels based on anatomical structure features of the pulmonary vessels from a medical image based on segmentation results of a pulmonary vascular region of the medical image ("Vessel structural measurements, specifically those that lead to the determination of% stenosis, have long been and remain the single most used measurements in patient care," paragraph [0164]);
obtain pulmonary embolism finding information in the pulmonary vessels of the medical image ("Efficient workflow solutions with automated measurement of structure and quantification of tissue composition and/or hemodynamics may be used to characterize patients at higher risk, who would be treated differently from those who are not. If we tie characteristics of plaque morphology to embolic potential," paragraph [0016] where embolic potential teaches pulmonary embolism);
visualize the structural information of the pulmonary vessels in accordance with hierarchical information ("FIG. 38 is a schematic depiction of the multiple cross-sections that may be processed to provide a dynamic analysis across the entire scanned vessel tree, illustrating the relationships between cross-sections and where the processing of one depends on its neighbors, according to the present disclosure," paragraph [0134] and "The studies stress the importance of complete characterization and assessment of the entire coronary tree, instead of just the culprit lesion, to allow more accurate risk stratification, which suitably analyzed CCTA can do." paragraph [0050]); and
visualize the pulmonary embolism finding information in association with individual sub-regions of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels visualized in accordance with the hierarchical information ("The sample patient report may further include visualizations 340, e.g., 2D and/or 3D visualizations of imaging data as well as combined visualizations of non-imaging data such as hemodynamic data overlaid onto imaging data. Various analytics 350 may be displayed for assessing the biological parameters/ analytes including, e.g., a visualization of one or more model(s) (e.g., a decision tree model) for determining/ characterizing pathology," paragraph [0161]).
Claim 11
Regarding Claim 11, Buckler et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the pulmonary embolism finding information visualized in each of the individual sub-regions of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels includes quantitative information about a possibility of a pulmonary embolism diagnosis for each sub-region of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels ("Vessel structural measurements, specifically those that lead to the determination of % stenosis, have long been and remain the single most used measurements in patient care," paragraph [0164] where % stenosis is a quantitative measure).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 3-9 and 12-16 (all remaining claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2019 0244347 A1, (Buckler et al.) in view of US Patent Publication 2025 0285275 A1, (Chen et al.). The references are listed in a PTO-892 from the Office Action in which they are first used.
Claim 3
Regarding Claim 3, Buckler et al. teach the method of claim 1, as noted above.
Buckler et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of whether an embolus has been detected in each sub-region of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels and a size of the detected embolus.
[AltContent: textbox (Chen et al. Fig. 12, showing an embolism segmentation model.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
726
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Chen et al. teach wherein the pulmonary embolism finding information visualized in each of the individual sub-regions of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels includes whether an embolus has been detected in each sub-region of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels and a size of the detected embolus ("Exemplary information relating to an embolism may include a size, a position information, obstruction degree information, etc., of the embolism. The position information of the embolism may indicate a position of the embolism in the pulmonary artery of the target subject," paragraph [0127]).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Buckler et al. and Chen et al. as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify “Methods and systems for using Quantitative Imaging” as taught by Buckler et al. to use “Lesion Identification Systems and Methods” as taught by Chen et al., showing that Buckler et al. and Chen et al. are analogous art because both are imaging body parts, including the lungs. The suggestion/motivation for combination is that, that, “A lesion identification result of the subject obtained based on the medical image is vital for subsequent medical diagnosis and/or treatment. Thus, it may be desirable to develop lesion identification systems and methods with improved efficiency and accuracy.” as noted by the Chen et al. disclosure in paragraph [0003], which also motivates combination because the combination would predictably have a higher efficiency calculating pulmonary embolisms as there is a reasonable expectation that different patients will have different amounts of embolisms in different areas; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Buckler et al. teach the method of claim 1, as noted above.
Buckler et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of segmentation information for each of the individual sub-regions including a left main artery, a right main artery, lobar arteries and segmental arteries of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels.
However, Chen et al. teach wherein the obtaining structural information of the pulmonary vessels comprises obtaining segmentation information for each of the individual sub-regions including a left main artery, a right main artery, lobar arteries and segmental arteries of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels ("In some embodiments, the plurality of levels of the pulmonary artery may be arranged from high level to low level, and include a main pulmonary artery trunk level, a left and right pulmonary artery trunk level, a pulmonary lobe level, a pulmonary segment level, a pulmonary subsegment level, etc. The main pulmonary trunk level may include a main pulmonary trunk. The left and right pulmonary artery level may include the left and right pulmonary arteries. The pulmonary lobe level may include pulmonary lobe vessels. The pulmonary segment level may include pulmonary segment vessel," paragraph [0133]).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, Buckler et al. teach the method of claim 1, as noted above.
Buckler et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of visualizing the individual sub-regions of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels in accordance with hierarchical information ranging up to a left main artery, a right main artery, lobar arteries, and segmental arteries.
However, Chen et al. teach wherein the visualizing the structural information of the pulmonary vessels comprises visualizing the individual sub-regions of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels in accordance with hierarchical information ranging up to a left main artery, a right main artery, lobar arteries, and segmental arteries ("Further, for each of the plurality of regions, the processing device 140 may determine an embolism burden score of the region based on the information related to one or more embolisms located in the region and the level of blood vessels included in the region," paragraph [0136] where the level of blood vessels teaches hierarchical information).
Buckler et al. and Chen et al. are combined as per claim 3.
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Buckler et al. teach the method of claim 1, as noted above.
Buckler et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of based on at least one of whether the pulmonary vessels have branched from a main artery trunk toward segmental arteries or results of comparing relative sizes of the sub-regions of the pulmonary vessels before the branching and relative sizes of the sub-regions of the pulmonary vessels after the branching.
However, Chen et al. teach wherein the obtaining the structural information of the pulmonary vessels comprises obtaining the structural information of the pulmonary vessels based on the anatomical structure features of the pulmonary vessels based on at least one of whether the pulmonary vessels have branched from a main artery trunk toward segmental arteries or results of comparing relative sizes of the sub-regions of the pulmonary vessels before the branching and relative sizes of the sub-regions of the pulmonary vessels after the branching ("In some embodiments, the plurality of levels of the pulmonary artery may be arranged from high level to low level, and include a main pulmonary artery trunk level, a left and right pulmonary artery trunk level, a pulmonary lobe level, a pulmonary segment level, a pulmonary subsegment level, etc. The main pulmonary trunk level may include a main pulmonary trunk. The left and right pulmonary artery level may include the left and right pulmonary arteries. The pulmonary lobe level may include pulmonary lobe vessels. The pulmonary segment level may include pulmonary segment vessel," paragraph [0133]).
Buckler et al. and Chen et al. are combined as per claim 3.
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, Buckler et al. teach the method of claim 1, as noted above.
Buckler et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of previously known anatomical structure features of the pulmonary vessels.
However, Chen et al. teach wherein the obtaining the structural information of the pulmonary vessels comprises obtaining the structural information of the pulmonary vessels including a distribution of individual segmental arteries by using at least one of the segmentation results of the pulmonary vascular region, segmentation results of lobes of a lung region of the medical image, or previously known anatomical structure features of the pulmonary vessels ("In some embodiments, the plurality of levels of the pulmonary artery may be arranged from high level to low level, and include a main pulmonary artery trunk level, a left and right pulmonary artery trunk level, a pulmonary lobe level, a pulmonary segment level, a pulmonary subsegment level, etc. The main pulmonary trunk level may include a main pulmonary trunk. The left and right pulmonary artery level may include the left and right pulmonary arteries. The pulmonary lobe level may include pulmonary lobe vessels. The pulmonary segment level may include pulmonary segment vessel," paragraph [0133]).
Buckler et al. and Chen et al. are combined as per claim 3.
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, Buckler et al. teach the method of claim 1, as noted above.
Buckler et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels includes a Qanadli score.
However, Chen et al. teach wherein the pulmonary embolism finding information visualized in each of the individual sub-regions of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels includes a Qanadli score that quantifies a number of emboli associated with each sub-region of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels ("For example, the Qanadli score (PAOIQ) is usually used to evaluate pulmonary embolism. PAOIQ is a semi-quantitative parameter of the severity of pulmonary embolism and can distinguish partial and complete obstruction at the pulmonary artery trunk, the pulmonary lobe vessels, and the pulmonary segment vessels," paragraph [0124]).
Buckler et al. and Chen et al. are combined as per claim 3.
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, Buckler et al. teach the method of claim 1, as noted above.
Buckler et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels includes a Miller score.
However, Chen et al. teach wherein the pulmonary embolism finding information visualized in each of the individual sub-regions of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels includes a Miller score using an objective score based on a segmental embolism for each sub-region of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels and a subjective score based on reduction of peripheral perfusion ("Further, for each of the plurality of regions, the processing device 140 may determine an embolism burden score of the region based on the information related to one or more embolisms located in the region and the level of blood vessels included in the region," paragraph [0136] where an embolism burden score teaches the Miller score).
Buckler et al. and Chen et al. are combined as per claim 3.
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, Buckler et al. teach the apparatus of claim 10, as noted above.
Buckler et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of whether an embolus has been detected in each sub-region of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels and a size of the detected embolus.
However, Chen et al. teach wherein the pulmonary embolism finding information visualized in each of the individual sub-regions of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels includes whether an embolus has been detected in each sub-region of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels and a size of the detected embolus ("Exemplary information relating to an embolism may include a size, a position information, obstruction degree information, etc., of the embolism. The position information of the embolism may indicate a position of the embolism in the pulmonary artery of the target subject," paragraph [0127]).
Buckler et al. and Chen et al. are combined as per claim 3.
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, Buckler et al. teach the apparatus of claim 10, as noted above.
Buckler et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of segmentation information for each of the individual sub-regions including a left main artery, a right main artery, lobar arteries and segmental arteries of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels when obtaining the structural information of the pulmonary vessels.
However, Chen et al. teach wherein the processor, by executing the one or more instructions, is further configured to obtain segmentation information for each of the individual sub-regions including a left main artery, a right main artery, lobar arteries and segmental arteries of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels when obtaining the structural information of the pulmonary vessels ("In some embodiments, the plurality of levels of the pulmonary artery may be arranged from high level to low level, and include a main pulmonary artery trunk level, a left and right pulmonary artery trunk level, a pulmonary lobe level, a pulmonary segment level, a pulmonary subsegment level, etc. The main pulmonary trunk level may include a main pulmonary trunk. The left and right pulmonary artery level may include the left and right pulmonary arteries. The pulmonary lobe level may include pulmonary lobe vessels. The pulmonary segment level may include pulmonary segment vessel," paragraph [0133]).
Buckler et al. and Chen et al. are combined as per claim 3.
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, Buckler et al. teach the apparatus of claim 10, as noted above.
Buckler et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of visualize the individual sub-regions of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels in accordance with hierarchical information.
However, Chen et al. teach wherein the processor, by executing the one or more instructions, is further configured to visualize the individual sub-regions of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels in accordance with hierarchical information ranging up to a left main artery, a right main artery, lobar arteries, and segmental arteries when visualizing the structural information of the pulmonary vessels in accordance with the hierarchical information ("Further, for each of the plurality of regions, the processing device 140 may determine an embolism burden score of the region based on the information related to one or more embolisms located in the region and the level of blood vessels included in the region," paragraph [0136] where the level of blood vessels teaches hierarchical information).
Buckler et al. and Chen et al. are combined as per claim 3.
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, Buckler et al. teach the apparatus of claim 10, as noted above.
Buckler et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of the structural information of the pulmonary vessels based on the anatomical structure features of the pulmonary vessels based on at least one of whether the pulmonary vessels have branched from a main artery trunk.
However, Chen et al. teach wherein the processor, by executing the one or more instructions, is further configured to obtain the structural information of the pulmonary vessels based on the anatomical structure features of the pulmonary vessels based on at least one of whether the pulmonary vessels have branched from a main artery trunk toward segmental arteries or results of comparing relative sizes of the sub-regions of the pulmonary vessels before the branching and relative sizes of the sub-regions of the pulmonary vessels after the branching when obtaining the structural information of the pulmonary vessels ("In some embodiments, the plurality of levels of the pulmonary artery may be arranged from high level to low level, and include a main pulmonary artery trunk level, a left and right pulmonary artery trunk level, a pulmonary lobe level, a pulmonary segment level, a pulmonary subsegment level, etc. The main pulmonary trunk level may include a main pulmonary trunk. The left and right pulmonary artery level may include the left and right pulmonary arteries. The pulmonary lobe level may include pulmonary lobe vessels. The pulmonary segment level may include pulmonary segment vessel," paragraph [0133]).
Buckler et al. and Chen et al. are combined as per claim 3.
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, Buckler et al. teach the apparatus of claim 10, as noted above.
Buckler et al. is not relied upon to explicitly teach all of a distribution of individual segmental arteries by using the segmentation results of the pulmonary vascular region.
However, Chen et al. teach wherein the processor, by executing the one or more instructions, is further configured to obtain the structural information of the pulmonary vessels including a distribution of individual segmental arteries by using the segmentation results of the pulmonary vascular region, segmentation results of lobes of a lung region of the medical image, or previously known anatomical structure features of the pulmonary vessels when obtaining the structural information of the pulmonary vessels ("In some embodiments, the plurality of levels of the pulmonary artery may be arranged from high level to low level, and include a main pulmonary artery trunk level, a left and right pulmonary artery trunk level, a pulmonary lobe level, a pulmonary segment level, a pulmonary subsegment level, etc. The main pulmonary trunk level may include a main pulmonary trunk. The left and right pulmonary artery level may include the left and right pulmonary arteries. The pulmonary lobe level may include pulmonary lobe vessels. The pulmonary segment level may include pulmonary segment vessel," paragraph [0133]).
Buckler et al. and Chen et al. are combined as per claim 3.
Reference Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US Patent Publication 2006 0023925 A1 to Kiraly et al. discloses tree-model visualization for detecting an abnormality in an anatomical tree structure are provided. The method comprises: fitting a tree-model to an anatomical tree structure; converting branches of the tree model into first two-dimensional branch images; and arranging the first two-dimensional branch images in a hierarchical order to form a second two-dimensional image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATH E WELLS whose telephone number is (703)756-4696. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Ms. Jennifer Mehmood can be reached on 571-272-2976. 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.
/Heath E. Wells/Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Date: 26 June 2026
/JENNIFER MEHMOOD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights