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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
The following informalities have been identified.
Claim 1 5th line “intravascular” should be “intravascularly”.
Claim 3 (page 4) 1st line “the first lumen” has no antecedent basis. Further 3rd line “the lumen” should be “the first lumen”. Claim 3 (page 4) 5th line “the second lumen” has no antecedent basis. Further 7th line “the lumen” should be “the second lumen”. For the purpose of prior art rejection, Examiner considers claim 3 dependent upon claim 2.
Claim 4 recites “the first point of interest”, “the first location”, “the second point of interest” and “the second location, while in claim 1 all of these items are in plural form.
Claim 6 3rd line “the centreline” has no antecedent basis. Further claim 6 recites “the first point of interest”, “the first location”, “the second point of interest” and “the second location, while in claim 1 all of these items are in plural form.
Claim 7 recites “the first point of interest”, “the first location”, “the second point of interest” and “the second location, while in claim 1 all of these items are in plural form.
Claim 9 recites “the first point of interest” and “the second point of interest”, while in claim 1 all of these items are in plural form.
Claim 13 recites “the first point of interest”, “the first location”, “the second point of interest” and “the second location, while in claim 1 all of these items are in plural form.
Claim 14 “the first statistical parameter” and “the second statistical parameter” have no antecedent basis.
Claim 15 “the first statistical criterion” and “the second statistical criterion” have no antecedent basis.
Claim 17 10th line “the points of interest” should be “the second points of interest”. Claim 17 12th line “the lumen” has no antecedent basis.
Claim 17 the phrases “identify matter around the lumen based on the second set of data and obtain at least one first matter location of the identified matter; based on the matching, associate the first matter location of the identified matter with a second matter location in the second set of data relative to the length of the vessel” are not clear regarding the identifying and associating. The following claim language is recommended: identify matter around the lumen of the vessel based on the second set of data and obtain at least one first matter location of the identified matter in the first set of data; based on the matching, associate the first matter location of the identified matter in the first set of data with a second matter location in the second set of data relative to the length of the vessel.
Claim 18 (page 8) 12th line “the lumen” has no antecedent basis. Further claim 18 the phrases “identifying matter around the lumen based on the second set of data and obtaining at least one first matter location of the identified matter; based on the matching, associating the first matter location of the identified matter with a second matter location in the second set of data relative to the length of the vessel” are not clear regarding identifying and associating. The following claim language is recommended: identifying matter around the lumen of the vessel based on the second set of data and obtaining at least one first matter location of the identified matter in the first set of data; based on the matching, associating the first matter location of the identified matter in the first set of data with a second matter location in the second set of data relative to the length of the vessel.
Claim 19 (page 9) 6th line “the lumen” has no antecedent basis. Further claim 19 the phrases “identifying matter around the lumen based on the second set of data and obtaining at least one first matter location of the identified matter; based on the matching, associating the first matter location of the identified matter with a second matter location in the second set of data relative to the length of the vessel” are not clear regarding the identifying and associating. The following claim language is recommended: identifying matter around the lumen of the vessel based on the second set of data and obtaining at least one first matter location of the identified matter in the first set of data; based on the matching, associating the first matter location of the identified matter in the first set of data with a second matter location in the second set of data relative to the length of the vessel.
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. The following table lists the occurrences that use means and corresponding structure and associated algorithm.
Claim no.
112(f) elements
Corresponding structure (PGPub)
Associated algorithm (PGPub)
17
a processing unit arranged to … identify first points of interest … identify second points of interest … match … identify matter … associate … provide …
FIG. 1 a processing unit 112; para. [0034] “microprocessor”, “microcontroller”
FIG. 2; para. [0040]-[0067]
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 § 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 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis for claim 1 is provided in the following. Claim 1 is reproduced in the following (annotation added):
1. In an electronic computing device, for execution or executed by the electronic computing device, a method of associating a first set of data comprising a geometrical representation of a vessel in a body of a mammal and a second set of data on the structure of the vessel, the second set of data having been acquired intravascular, the method comprising:
(a) identifying first points of interest of the vessel at first locations along a length of the vessel, based on the first set of data;
(b) identifying second points of interest of the vessel at second locations along a length of the vessel, based on the second set of data;
(c) matching the first set of data to the second set of data, based on the first locations and the second locations on one hand and the first points of interest and the second points of interest on the other hand;
(d) identifying matter around the lumen of the vessel based on the second set of data and obtaining at least one first matter location of the identified matter in the first set of data;
(e) associating, based on the matching, the first matter location of the identified matter in the first set of data with a second matter location in the second set of data relative to the length of the vessel; and
(f) providing a third set of data comprising a combination of the geometrical representation of the vessel and locations of the identified matter relative to the geometrical representation of the vessel.
Step 1: Evaluating whether the claim belongs to one of the statutory categories.
Claim 1 recites a method. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If no exception is recited, the claim is eligible. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If the claim recites an exception, go to Step 2A Prong Two.
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea of mental processes. In claim 1 steps (a)-(e) are recited at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind. These concepts fall into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas, which is observation, evaluation and/or judgment. The limitations, interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation and in consistent with the specification, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04 and the 2019 PEG. (Step 2A Prong One YES)
Step 2A Prong Two: Evaluating whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. If the answer to (a) is YES and (b) is NO, go to Step 2B; if the answer to (a) and (b) is YES, go to PATHWAY B, i.e., the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and the claim is eligible.
In claim 1, step (f) can be regarded as additional elements. These elements recite data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A Prong Two NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
In claim 1, step (f) can be regarded as additional elements. These elements recite data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Data output is well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known to the industry. The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. (Step 2B: NO). Claim 1 is not eligible.
Claim 2 recites, “wherein the first points of interest are associated with first geometrical features of one or more first lumen of the vessel at the first location and the second points of interest are associated with second geometrical features of one or more second lumen of the vessel at the second location”. These additional elements provide extra information of the first/second points of interest and do not resolve the abstract idea issue identified in claim 1. These additional elements neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor amount it to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 2 is not eligible.
Claim 3 recites (annotation added), “wherein: identifying first points of interest of the first lumen comprises, based on the first set of data, along a first length of the vessel, identifying a first deviation location of a first deviation at which the lumen deviates from a pre-determined shape by more than a pre-determined first threshold; and identifying second points of interest of the second lumen comprises, based on the second set of data, along a second length of the vessel, identifying a second deviation location of a second deviation at which the lumen deviates from a pre-determined shape by more than a pre-determined second threshold; and the matching further comprises matching the first set of data to the second set of data, based on the first deviation location and the second deviation location on one hand and the first deviations and the second deviations on the other hand.” Claim 3 “identifying a first derivation location”, “identifying a second derivation location” and the “matching” acts recite additional mental processes. Claim 3 is not eligible.
Claim 4 recites (annotation added), “obtaining data on a first angular position of the first point of interest at the first location, relative to the lumen, and a second angular position of the second point of interest at the second location, relative to the lumen; and wherein the matching is further based on the first angular position and the second angular position”. The “obtaining data” phrase recites additional elements of data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known to the industry. The “matching” phrase just provides extra information of the matching and does not resolve the abstract idea issue identified in claim 1. These additional elements neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor amount it to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 4 is not eligible.
Claim 5 recites, “wherein: the first deviation is determined based on a first difference between a first distance between a centreline of the vessel and an inner wall of the vessel at the first location; and the second deviation is determined based on a second difference between a second distance between a centreline of the vessel and an inner wall of the vessel at the second location”. These additional elements involve mental processes. Claim 5 is not eligible.
Claim 6 recites, “wherein: the first point of interest is determined at the first location at a first angular position relative to the centreline; and the second point of interest is determined at the second location at a second angular position relative to the centreline”. These additional elements involve mental processes. Claim 6 is not eligible.
Claim 7 recites, “wherein: the first point of interest is determined by determining a deviation at the first location at which a first value of a first parameter comprised by data in the first set of data differs from a first pre-determined value by more than a first threshold value; and the second point of interest is determined by determining a deviation at the second location at which a second value of a second parameter comprised by data in the second set of data differs from a second pre-determined value by more than a second threshold value”. These additional elements involve mental processes. Claim 7 is not eligible.
Claim 8 recites, “wherein: the first threshold value is at least one of a fixed value and a relative value dependent on at least one of the first value, the first pre-determined value and the first threshold value; and the second threshold value is at least one of a fixed value and a relative value dependent on at least one of the second value, the second pre-determined value and the second threshold value”. These additional elements provide extra information of the first/second threshold value and do not resolve the abstract idea issue identified in claim 1. These additional elements neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor amount it to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 8 is not eligible.
Claim 9 recites, “wherein: determining the first point of interest comprises identifying a first branch in the vessel; and determining the second point of interest comprises identifying the first branch in the vessel”. The identifying acts recite additional mental processes. Claim 9 is not eligible.
Claim 10 recites, “wherein the identifying of matter comprises identifying of matter in a wall of the vessel”. The identifying act recites additional mental processes. Claim 10 is not eligible.
Claim 11 recites, “wherein the data of the second set of is obtained using at least one of intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography”. These elements provide extra information on the modality that acquires the second set of data. These additional elements neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor amount it to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 11 is not eligible.
Claim 12 recites (annotation added), “The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying at least part of the third set of data by displaying at least part of the three-dimensional representation of the vessel and the identified matter relative to the vessel”. The “displaying” act recites additional elements of data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known to the industry. These additional elements neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor amount it to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 12 is not eligible.
Claim 13 recites (annotation added), “wherein the first point of interest is determined at the first location at a first angular position relative to the centreline; and the second point of interest is determined at the second location at a second angular position relative to the centreline; the method further comprising: at the first location, obtaining a multitude of first distances at a multitude of angular locations relative to the centreline; at the second location, obtaining a multitude of second distances at a multitude of angular locations relative to the centreline; determining the first deviation at the first location if a statistical parameter of value of the multitude of first distances matches a pre-determined first statistical condition; and determining the second deviation at the second location if a statistical parameter value of the multitude of second distances matches a pre-determined second statistical condition”. The annotated acts recite additional mental processes. Claim 13 is not eligible.
Claim 14 recites, “wherein: the first statistical parameter is based on at least one of an average, median, standard deviation, maximum and minimum of the multitude of first distances; and the second statistical parameter is based on at least one of an average, median, standard deviation, maximum and minimum of the multitude of second distances”. These additional elements involve mathematical calculations, which are in the abstract idea grouping of “mathematical concepts”. Claim 14 is not eligible.
Claim 15 recites, “wherein: the first statistical criterion is met if a pre-determined amount of first distances differs more than a first statistical threshold value from the first statistical parameter; and the second statistical criterion is met if a pre-determined amount of second distances differs more than a second statistical threshold value from the second statistical parameter”. These additional elements involve mental processes (comparison and judging). Claim 15 is not eligible.
Claim 16 recites, “wherein: the first statistical criterion is met if at least one value of the first distances differs from the first statistical parameter by more than a third statistical parameter threshold value; and the second statistical criterion is met if at least one value of the second distances differs from the second statistical parameter by more than a fourth statistical parameter threshold value”. These additional elements involve mental processes (comparison and judging). Claim 16 is not eligible.
Claim 17, an independent apparatus claim, recites similar steps as recited in claim 1. However claim 17 recites “a processing unit” arranged to perform the steps, elements that are interpreted as invoking 35 USC 112 (f) claim interpretation. The corresponding structure of the processing unit disclosed in the spec is para. [0034] “microprocessor”/“microcontroller”, i.e., a general purpose computer. To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. In this instance, the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification (See MPEP 2181 II (B)). As described in the specification, the following algorithm is related to the processing unit: FIG. 2; para. [0040]-[0067]. These paragraphs describe a specific manner of identifying first points of interest, identifying second points of interest, matching the first set of data and the second set of data, identifying matter, associating the first matter location and the second matter location and providing a third set of data, therefore provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, and apply or use the judicial exception in a 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. Claim 17 is eligible.
Claim 18, an independent computer program product claim, recites similar steps as recited in claim 1. Claim 18 additionally recites “a processing unit” to perform the steps. However, the processing unit is merely recited as a tool to perform the mental processes, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 18 is not eligible.
Claim 19, an independent computer readable medium claim, recites similar steps as recited in claim 1. Claim 19 additionally recites “a processor” to perform the steps. However, the processor is merely recited as a tool to perform the mental processes, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 19 is not eligible.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Per claim 18, based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim 18 held to claim a “computer program product” that does not preclude signals or carrier waves from serving as said medium, and is therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter. See paragraph [0040] (PGPub), which does not preclude "signal" per se. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
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 5 and 13-16 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 5 recites (annotation added), in part, “wherein: (A) the first deviation is determined based on a first difference between a first distance between a centreline of the vessel and an inner wall of the vessel at the first location; and (B) the second deviation is determined based on a second difference between a second distance between a centreline of the vessel and an inner wall of the vessel at the second location”.
In occurrence (A) “a first difference between …” means there should be two values involved. However, there is only one value is recited, i.e., a first distance between a centreline of the vessel and an inner wall of the vessel at the first location (that’s the radius at the first location). Similar issue exists in occurrence (B). For prior art rejection, Examiner considers the following limitations:
wherein: the first deviation is determined based on a first difference between a first distance, which is the distance between a centreline of the vessel and an inner wall of the vessel at the first location, and a first fixed value; and the second deviation is determined based on a second difference between a second distance, which is a distance between a centreline of the vessel and an inner wall of the vessel at the second location, and a second fixed value.
Claims 13-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 13.
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 (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 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) 1-12 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitamura (EP 2437216 A1, published 4/4/2012).
As per claim 1, Kitamura teaches in an electronic computing device (FIG. 1), for execution or executed by the electronic computing device (FIG. 1), a method (Abstract) of associating (Abstract “correlated”) a first set of data comprising a geometrical representation of a vessel in a body of a mammal (Abstract “blood vessel”, “a three-dimensional image (V1) representing the tubular structure”; para. [0036] “a patient”) and a second set of data on the structure of the vessel, the second set of data having been acquired intravascular (Abstract “a three-dimensional intra-tubular-structure image (V2) that has been generated from plural tomographic images of the tubular structure”), the method comprising:
identifying first points of interest of the vessel at first locations along a length of the vessel, based on the first set of data (FIG. 1 #63; FIG. 2 S01, S03; Kitamura identifies a plurality of first points of interest along centerline, including start point and end point (FIG. 6a As and Ae; para. [0061]), characteristic points, such as points at branches and plaques (FIG. 6a Ak1, Ak2, Ak3; para. [0061]-[0062]), and points within sections between 2 points, such as points between As and Ak1, points between Ak1 and Ak2, points between Ak2 and Ak3 and points between Ak3 and Ae (para. [0062]-[0063]));
identifying second points of interest of the vessel at second locations along a length of the vessel, based on the second set of data (FIG. 1 #63; FIG. 2 S02, S03; Kitamura identifies a plurality of second points of interest along centerline, including start point and end point (FIG. 6b Bs and Be; para. [0061]), characteristic points, such as points at branches and plaques (FIG. 6b Bk1, Bk2, Bk3; para. [0061]-[0062]), and points within sections between 2 points, such as points between Bs and Bk1, points between Bk1 and Bk2, points between Bk2 and Bk3 and points between Bk3 and Be (para. [0062]-[0063]));
matching the first set of data to the second set of data, based on the first locations and the second locations on one hand and the first points of interest and the second points of interest on the other hand (FIG. 2 S05; para. [0064]);
identifying matter around the lumen of the vessel based on the second set of data and obtaining at least one first matter location of the identified matter in the first set of data (FIG. 9Aa and 9Ab plaque region PL; para. [0051], [0053]);
associating, based on the matching, the first matter location of the identified matter in the first set of data with a second matter location in the second set of data relative to the length of the vessel (FIG. 2 S06; FIG. 7a-7b; para. [0066]-[0070]; para. [0076]); and
providing a third set of data comprising a combination of the geometrical representation of the vessel and locations of the identified matter relative to the geometrical representation of the vessel (Abstract: “Further, a projection three-dimensional image (V3) is generated by projecting an image of a specific structure included in the range (W2) in the three dimensional intra-tubular-structure image (V2) into the correlated range (W1) in the three-dimensional image (V1)”. FIG. 2 S08 and S09; para. [0076]-[0077]).
As per claim 2, dependent upon claim 1, Kitamura teaches wherein the first points of interest are associated with first geometrical features of one or more first lumen of the vessel at the first location and the second points of interest are associated with second geometrical features of one or more second lumen of the vessel at the second location (FIG. 6a-6b; FIG. 8Aa, 8Ab; FIG. 9Aa, 9Ab; para. [0051]-[0053]).
As per claim 3, dependent upon claim 2, Kitamura teaches wherein:
identifying first points of interest of the first lumen comprises, based on the first set of data, along a first length of the vessel, identifying a first deviation location of a first deviation at which the lumen deviates from a pre-determined shape by more than a pre-determined first threshold (FIG. 9Aa, 9Ba; para. [0053] “Further, a position at which the lumen of the blood vessel is smaller than the extralumen of the blood vessel is detected as the position of the plaque portion with respect to the longitudinal direction of the blood vessel”. That is to say, if at a position, the radius is smaller than the radius of the extralumen, i.e., the lumen deviates from a pre-determined circle by zero, this position is determined as a plaque portion); and
identifying second points of interest of the second lumen comprises, based on the second set of data, along a second length of the vessel, identifying a second deviation location of a second deviation at which the lumen deviates from a pre-determined shape by more than a pre-determined second threshold (FIG. 9Ab, 9Bb; para. [0053] “Further, a position at which the lumen of the blood vessel is smaller than the extralumen of the blood vessel is detected as the position of the plaque portion with respect to the longitudinal direction of the blood vessel”. That is to say, if at a position, the radius is smaller than the radius of the extralumen, i.e., the lumen deviates from a pre-determined circle by zero, this position is determined as a plaque portion); and
the matching further comprises matching the first set of data to the second set of data, based on the first deviation location and the second deviation location on one hand and the first deviations and the second deviations on the other hand (FIG, 2 S05; FIG. 6a-6b Ak3, Bk3).
As per claim 4, dependent upon claim 1, Kitamura further teaches:
obtaining data on a first angular position of the first point of interest at the first location, relative to the lumen, and a second angular position of the second point of interest at the second location, relative to the lumen (FIG. 7a-7b; para. ; and
wherein the matching is further based on the first angular position and the second angular position (FIG. 2 S06).
As per claim 5, dependent upon claim 3, Kitamura further teaches (limitations modified in view of 112b rejection):
wherein: the first deviation is determined based on a first difference between a first distance, which is the distance between a centreline of the vessel and an inner wall of the vessel at the first location, and a first fixed value; and the second deviation is determined based on a second difference between a second distance, which is a distance between a centreline of the vessel and an inner wall of the vessel at the second location, and a second fixed value (FIG. 9Ab, 9Bb; para. [0053] “Further, a position at which the lumen of the blood vessel is smaller than the extralumen of the blood vessel is detected as the position of the plaque portion with respect to the longitudinal direction of the blood vessel”. That is to say, a difference is calculated between the distance between a centreline of the vessel and an inner wall of the vessel at the first location and the extralumen of the blood vessel.)
As per claim 6, dependent upon claim 1, Kitamura teaches, wherein: the first point of interest is determined at the first location at a first angular position relative to the centreline; and the second point of interest is determined at the second location at a second angular position relative to the centreline (FIG. 2 S06; Fig. 7a-7b; para. [0066]-[0068]).
As per claim 7, dependent upon claim 1, Kitamura teaches, wherein:
the first point of interest is determined by determining a deviation at the first location at which a first value of a first parameter comprised by data in the first set of data differs from a first pre-determined value by more than a first threshold value (FIG. 9Ab; para. [0053] “Further, a position at which the lumen of the blood vessel is smaller than the extralumen of the blood vessel is detected as the position of the plaque portion with respect to the longitudinal direction of the blood vessel”. That is to say, if at a position, the radius (a first value of a first parameter) is smaller than the radius of the extralumen (a first pre-determined value), i.e., the deviation is more than zero (a first threshold value), the point at this position is determined as a first point of interest); and
the second point of interest is determined by determining a deviation at the second location at which a second value of a second parameter comprised by data in the second set of data differs from a second pre-determined value by more than a second threshold value (FIG. 9Bb; para. [0053] “Further, a position at which the lumen of the blood vessel is smaller than the extralumen of the blood vessel is detected as the position of the plaque portion with respect to the longitudinal direction of the blood vessel”. That is to say, if at a position, the radius (a second value of a second parameter) is smaller than the radius of the extralumen (a second pre-determined value), i.e., the deviation is more than zero (a second threshold value), the point at this position is determined as a second point of interest).
As per claim 8, dependent upon claim 7, Kitamura further teaches, wherein:
the first threshold value is at least one of a fixed value (See rejections applied to claim 7, Zero, a fixed value, is considered the first threshold value) and a relative value dependent on at least one of the first value, the first pre-determined value and the first threshold value; and the
second threshold value is at least one of a fixed value (See rejections applied to claim 7, Zero, a fixed value, is considered the second threshold value) and a relative value dependent on at least one of the second value, the second pre-determined value and the second threshold value.
As per claim 9, dependent upon claim 1, Kitamura teaches, wherein: determining the first point of interest comprises identifying a first branch in the vessel; and determining the second point of interest comprises identifying the first branch in the vessel (FIG. 2 S06; FIG. 6a Ak1, Ak2; FIG. 6b Bk1, Bk2; FIG. 8Aa, 8Ab; para. [0051]-[0053]).
As per claim 10, dependent upon claim 1, Kitamura teaches, wherein the identifying of matter comprises identifying of matter in a wall of the vessel (FIG. 6a-6b PL; FIG. 9Aa, 9Ab; para. [0053]).
As per claim 11, dependent upon claim 1, Kitamura teaches, wherein the data of the second set of is obtained using at least one of intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography (para. [0018]).
As per claim 12, dependent upon claim 1, Kitamura teaches, further comprising displaying at least part of the third set of data by displaying at least part of the three-dimensional representation of the vessel and the identified matter relative to the vessel (FIG. 2 S08-S10; FIG. 11A-11B; para. [0034] “The projection three-dimensional image generation means 66 generates projection three-dimensional image V3 by projecting an image of a specific structure included in the range W2 in the three-dimensional intra-tubular-structure image V2 into the range W1 in the three-dimensional image V1 correlated by the correlating means 65. The image generation means 67 generates an image by reconstructing the projection three-dimensional image, and the display control means 68 makes a display device display the reconstructed image”; As shown in FIG. 6a-6b, the range W1/W2 includes the identified matter-plaque PL).
Independent claim 17 the elements “a processing unit arranged to … identify first points of interest … identify second points of interest … match … identify matter … associate … provide…” are interpreted as invoking 35 112(f) claim interpretation. Accordingly, the algorithm associated with the above elements disclosed in the spec, specifically FIG. 2 and para. [0040]-[0067], are read into the elements. The following art rejection of claim 17 considers the associated algorithm.
As per claim 17, an independent apparatus claim, Kitamura teaches a device (FIG. 1) arranged for associating (Abstract) a first set of data comprising a geometrical representation of a vessel in a body of a mammal (Abstract “blood vessel”, “a three-dimensional image (V1) representing the tubular structure”; para. [0036] “a patient”) with a second set of data on the structure of the vessel, the second set of data having been acquired intravascularly (Abstract “a three-dimensional intra-tubular-structure image (V2) that has been generated from plural tomographic images of the tubular structure”), the device comprising a processing unit (FIG. 1 #6; para. [0033] “The WS 6 for diagnosis is a general-purpose workstation including a standard processor, a memory and a storage”) arranged to:
based on the first set of data, at first positions along a length of the vessel, identify first points of interest of the vessel at first locations (FIG. 1 #63; FIG. 2 S01, S03; Kitamura identifies a plurality of first points of interest along centerline, including start point and end point (FIG. 6a As and Ae; para. [0061]), characteristic points, such as points at branches and plaques (FIG. 6a Ak1, Ak2, Ak3; para. [0061]-[0062]), and points within sections between 2 points, such as points between As and Ak1, points between Ak1 and Ak2, points between Ak2 and Ak3 and points between Ak3 and Ae (para. [0062]-[0063]));
based on the second set of data, at second positions along a length of the vessel, identify second points of interest of the vessel at second locations (FIG. 1 #63; FIG. 2 S02, S03; Kitamura identifies a plurality of second points of interest along centerline, including start point and end point (FIG. 6b Bs and Be; para. [0061]), characteristic points, such as points at branches and plaques (FIG. 6b Bk1, Bk2, Bk3; para. [0061]-[0062]), and points within sections between 2 points, such as points between Bs and Bk1, points between Bk1 and Bk2, points between Bk2 and Bk3 and points between Bk3 and Be (para. [0062]-[0063]));
match the first set of data to the second set of data, based on the first locations and the second locations on one hand and the first points of interest and the points of interest on the other hand (FIG. 2 S05; para. [0064]);
identify matter around the lumen based on the second set of data and obtain at least one first matter location of the identified matter (FIG. 9Aa and 9Ab plaque region PL; para. [0051], [0053]);
based on the matching, associate the first matter location of the identified matter with a second matter location in the second set of data relative to the length of the vessel (FIG. 2 S06; FIG. 7a-7b; para. [0066]-[0070]; para. [0076]); and
provide a third set of data comprising a combination of the geometrical representation of the vessel and locations of the identified matter relative to the geometrical representation of the vessel (Abstract: “Further, a projection three-dimensional image (V3) is generated by projecting an image of a specific structure included in the range (W2) in the three dimensional intra-tubular-structure image (V2) into the correlated range (W1) in the three-dimensional image (V1)”. FIG. 2 S08 and S09; para. [0076]-[0077]).
Claim 18, an independent product claim, recites steps corresponding to method claim 1. Therefore the recited steps of 18 are mapped to Kitamura in the same manner as corresponding steps in claim 1. Kitamura additionally teaches system elements, such as computer program product (para. [0033] “The program for reconstructing an image of the inside of a tubular structure is installed in the WS 6 for diagnosis from a recording medium”) and a processing unit (para. [0033] “The WS 6 for diagnosis is a general-purpose workstation including a standard processor”).
Claim 19, an independent medium claim, recites steps corresponding to method claim 1. Therefore the recited steps of 19 are mapped to Kitamura in the same manner as corresponding steps in claim 1. Kitamura additionally teaches system elements, such as a non-transitory computer readable medium (para. [0033] “The program for reconstructing an image of the inside of a tubular structure is installed in the WS 6 for diagnosis from a recording medium”) and a processor (para. [0033] “The WS 6 for diagnosis is a general-purpose workstation including a standard processor”).
As per claim 20, dependent upon claim 17, Kitamura teaches wherein the geometrical representation of the vessel is a three-dimensional representation (Abstract “a three-dimensional image (V1) representing the tubular structure”; FIG. 6a).
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.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura (EP 2437216 A1, published 4/4/2012), in view of Mangoubi et al. US 20110170751 A1, hereafter Mangoubi).
As per claim 13, dependent upon claim 5, Kitamura teaches wherein:
the first point of interest is determined at the first location at a first angular position relative to the centreline (FIG. 6a; FIG. 7a; FIG. 8Aa, 8Ba; FIG. 9Aa, 9Ba; para. [0066]-[0068]); and
the second point of interest is determined at the second location at a second angular position relative to the centreline (FIG. 6b; FIG. 7b; FIG. 8Ab, 8Bb; FIG. 9Ab, 9Bb; para. [0066]-[0068]);
the method further comprising:
at the first location, obtaining a multitude of first distances at a multitude of angular locations relative to the centreline (FIG. 8Ca and FIG. 9Ba long axis and short axis);
at the second location, obtaining a multitude of second distances at a multitude of angular locations relative to the centreline (FIG. 8Cb and FIG. 9Bb long axis and short axis);
determining the first deviation at the first location if a statistical parameter of value of the multitude of first distances matches a pre-determined first which plaque is concentrated on the cross section (a direction from the path toward the plaque)”; The process of determining long axis (maximum distance) and short axis (minimum distance) is a statistical process.); and
determining the second deviation at the second location if a statistical parameter value of the multitude of second distances matches a pre-determined second
When determining plaque portion, Kitamura compares the radius (or axis) with radius or axis of the extralumen of the blood vessel (para. [0053]; FIG. 9Aa, 9Ab). Kitamura does not compare the radius (or axis) with a statistical radius or axis of the extralumen of the blood vessel. That says Kitamura does not teach a pre-determined first statistical condition and a pre-determined second statistical condition.
Mangoubi in an analogous field discloses a method for detecting retinal abnormalities in fundus image (Abstract). Specifically, a variation in a radius of the retinal feature is identified. In FIG. 16A, identified blood vessel and its center line 1602 is shown. FIG. 16B is a graph of the radius of the blood vessel along the length of the center line 1602 (i.e., at a sequential plurality of locations). FIG. 16C uses color variation to indicate the radius of the vessel at corresponding points along the center line 1602, and indicates a red narrowing in the region of box 1604, which corresponds to the narrowing in FIG. 16A in the region of box 1606. When the radius decreases below a particular radius (or decreases below a specified percentage of a nominal or average radius), the system may determine that the narrowing has exceeded a threshold and identify an abnormality. See para. [0079].
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Kitamura to incorporate the teaching of Mangoubi to introduce a statistical condition when determining deviation in blood vessel. Doing so would identify an abnormality in accuracy as recognized by Mangoubi (para. [0008]).
As per claim 14, dependent upon claim 13, Kitamura in view of Mangoubi teaches wherein:
the first statistical parameter is based on at least one of an average, median, standard deviation, maximum and minimum of the multitude of first distances (Kitamura Fig. 8Ca and 9Ba long axis and short axis corresponding to maximum and minimum of the multitude of first distances); and
the second statistical parameter is based on at least one of an average, median, standard deviation, maximum and minimum of the multitude of second distances (Kitamura Fig. 8Cb and 9Bb long axis and short axis corresponding to maximum and minimum of the multitude of first distances).
As per claim 15, dependent upon claim 14, Kitamura in view of Mangoubi teaches wherein:
the first statistical criterion is met if a pre-determined amount of first distances differs more than a first statistical threshold value from the first statistical parameter; and the second statistical criterion is met if a pre-determined amount of second distances differs more than a second statistical threshold value from the second statistical parameter (Mangoubi para. [0079] “When the radius decreases below a particular radius (or decreases below a specified percentage of a nominal or average radius), the system may determine that the narrowing has exceeded a threshold and identify an abnormality”).
As per claim 16, dependent upon claim 15, Kitamura in view of Mangoubi teaches wherein:
the first statistical criterion is met if at least one value of the first distances differs from the first statistical parameter by more than a third statistical parameter threshold value; and the second statistical criterion is met if at least one value of the second distances differs from the second statistical parameter by more than a fourth statistical parameter threshold value (Mangoubi para. [0079] “When the radius decreases below a particular radius (or decreases below a specified percentage of a nominal or average radius), the system may determine that the narrowing has exceeded a threshold and identify an abnormality”).
Conclusion
The following prior art is considered closely related to the current application.
MOULTON (US 20200375576 A1) discloses a co-registration systems that includes at least an intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) device to collect ultrasound image data and an angiogram/fluoroscopy device to collect radiological image data (Abstract; para. [0007]). MOULTON further teaches registration of the data from the two modalities by using markers (para. [0064]-[0065]; FIG. 4-7).
Liu et al. (US 20230128130 A1) discloses a method and system for 3D reconstruction of coronary artery based on vascular branch registration. The method includes: classifying bifurcated vessels and normal vessels of an intravascular ultrasound image and segmenting intima and adventitia of the bifurcated vessels and normal vessels separately; extracting a 3D centerline of a CAG image; locating vascular branches and automatically matching key points of the CAG image; and registering the intima and adventitia segmentation images to the 3D centerline of the CAG image according to the key points of the CAG image and performing 3D reconstruction of the coronary artery (Abstract; FIG. 1; para. [0039]).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUEMEI G CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, John M Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/XUEMEI G CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/XUEMEI G CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights