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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 04/20/2026 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-15, and 18 have been amended. Claims 16, 17,19, and 20 have been canceled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-15, 18, and 21 are currently pending in the application with claim 1 being independent.
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 5-10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “maximum distance threshold” in claims 5 and 21 is used by the claim to mean “a lower band threshold wherein the accepted values should be greater than this limit” while the accepted meaning is “the upper bound threshold wherein the accepted values should be less than this limit” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “maximum positive curvature hreshold” in claims 9 and 21 is used by the claim to mean “a lower band threshold wherein the accepted values should be greater than this limit” while the accepted meaning is “the upper bound threshold wherein the accepted values should be less than this limit” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “maximum positive curvature threshold” in claims 7 and 21 is used by the claim to mean “a lower band threshold wherein the accepted values should be greater than this limit” while the accepted meaning is “the upper bound threshold wherein the accepted values should be less than this limit” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Regarding claims 21, claim recites a limitation referring to “minimum distance threshold” and another term “maximum distance threshold”. It is not clear what is the difference between these two terms as the claim requires that the distance of the existing anchor point to the new point would be greater than both of these thresholds. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear and the claim is considered to be indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation has been used and it is assumed that both term refer to the same threshold.
Claims 6, 8, and 10 depend upon indefinite claims 5, 7, and 9 and are considered to be indefinite due to their dependency upon indefinite claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 12, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0036404) hereinafter “Li” in view of Kim (U.S. Patent No. 5,774,595) hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a system, [system 100 of Li; see FIG. 1 and [0021] and abstract of Li] comprising:
an intravascular imaging catheter configured to perform intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) imaging or optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging while the intravascular imaging catheter is positioned within a blood vessel; and [see FIG. 1, [0094] and [0024] of Li; further see FIGs. 2=3 showing the IVUS images are taken while the catheter is inside the blood vessel]
a processor [border detection subsystem 110 is a processing unit; see claim 10] circuit configured for communication with the intravascular imaging catheter [see FIG. 1, [0021], [0024]; the border detection system is in communication with the ultrasound imaging subsystem] and
a display, [display 125; see [0021] of Li]
wherein the processor circuit is configured to:
control the intravascular intraluminal imaging catheter to obtain an intravascular image [see [0021] of Li] while the intraluminal imaging catheter is positioned within a blood vessel; [see FIG. 2-4, and [0024]; the image is an IVUS image which is within the blood vessel]
automatically generate a plurality of anchor points along an anatomical boundary within the intravascular image without receiving user input identifying locations for the plurality of anchor points [see [0025]-[0030]; a plurality of edge points or initial border (i.e. anchor points) are automatically detected]
generate a contour corresponding to the anatomical boundary by performing interpolation between the plurality of anchor points; and [see [0030]; the border is determined by passing through the set of pixels that make up the edge]
output, to the display, a screen display comprising the intravascular image, the plurality of anchor points within the intravascular image, and the contour within the intravascular image, [see FIG. 3 and [0031]] wherein a visual appearance of the plurality of anchor points and a visual appearance of the contour are different from one another in the screen display,[ see FIG. 4A; the appearance of the points and the contour is different since the contour is a line and the points are zero-dimensional dots]
Li does not expressly disclose wherein the processor circuit is configured to iteratively determine a location of each anchor point based on: at least one distance threshold representative of a distance of the contour between adjacent anchor points; and at least one curvature threshold representative of a curvature of the contour between the adjacent anchor points
Kim, directed towards automatic detection of contours of objects [see abstract of Kim] further discloses the processor circuit is configured to iteratively determine a location of each anchor point based on: at least one distance threshold representative of a distance of the contour between adjacent anchor points; [see FIG. 2A and column 3, lines 12-25; the new point C is added to points A and B if the distance from point C (new point) to line segment AB is more than a predetermined threshold]and at least one curvature threshold representative of a curvature of the contour between the adjacent anchor points[see column 4, lines 31-60 and column 5, lines 17-30; the number of pixels between the contour between the new point and the previous pint and the curvature of the outline is calculated (which is a measure of how much the contour is curved away from the segment line) and is compared with a threshold]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li such that the processor circuit is configured to iteratively determine a location of each anchor point based on: at least one distance threshold representative of a distance of the contour between adjacent anchor points; and at least one curvature threshold representative of a curvature of the contour between the adjacent anchor points according to the teachings of Kim in order to reduce approximation errors in contour information [see column 2, lines 1-2 of Kim]
Regarding claim 2, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kim further discloses that the processor circuit is configured to add an anchor point based on at least one of a comparison between the distance and the at least one distance threshold [see FIG. 2A and column 3, lines 12-25; the new point C is added to points A and B if the distance from point C (new point) to line segment AB is more than a predetermined threshold ; further see column 5, lines 17-30; the point with largest curvature is selected] or a comparison between the curvature and the at least one curvature threshold. [see claim 1 of Kim; the processes a step-by step process and therefore the new point is selected consecutively compared to the previous points]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that the processor circuit is configured to add an anchor point based on at least one of a comparison between the distance and the at least one distance threshold or a comparison between the curvature and the at least one curvature threshold according to the teachings of Kim in order to reduce approximation errors in contour information [see column 2, lines 1-2 of Kim]
Regarding claim 3, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kim further discloses that the at least one distance threshold comprises a minimum distance threshold, and wherein, the processor circuit is configured to add a new anchor point only when the distance from an existing anchor point is equal or greater than the minimum threshold distance [column 3, lines 12-25; the new point C is added to points A and B if the distance from point C (new point) to line segment AB is more than a predetermined threshold] wherein the existing anchor point and the new anchor point are the adjacent anchor points. [see FIGs. 2A-2C; the point C is adjacent to both points A and B]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that the at least one distance threshold comprises a minimum distance threshold, and wherein, the processor circuit is configured to add a new anchor point only when the distance from an existing anchor point is equal or greater than the minimum threshold wherein the existing anchor point and the new anchor point are the adjacent anchor points according to the teachings of Kim in order to reduce approximation errors in contour information [see column 2, lines 1-2 of Kim]
Regarding claim 8, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kim further discloses wherein the at least one distance threshold comprises a minimum distance threshold [see column 3, lines 12-25; the new point C is added to points A and B if the distance from point C (new point) to line segment AB is more than a predetermined threshold] and wherein the processor circuit is configured to add the new anchor point only when the distance from an existing anchor point is equal to or greater than the minimum distance threshold. [see FIG. 2A and column 3, lines 12-25; the new point C is added to points A and B if the distance from point C (new point) to line segment AB is more than a predetermined threshold] wherein the existing anchor point and the new anchor point are the adjacent anchor points. [see FIGs. 2A-2C; the point C is adjacent to both points A and B]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that wherein the at least one distance threshold comprises a minimum distance threshold and wherein the processor circuit is configured to add the new anchor point only when the distance from an existing anchor point is equal to or greater than the minimum distance threshold wherein the existing anchor point and the new anchor point are the adjacent anchor points according to the teachings of Kim in order to reduce approximation errors in contour information [see column 2, lines 1-2 of Kim]
Regarding claim 9, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kim further discloses that the at least one curvature threshold comprises a maximum positive curvature threshold, and wherein, the processor circuit is configured to add a new anchor point when the curvature is more positive than the maximum positive curvature threshold. [see column 4, lines 44-55; the curvature (i.e. second error value) is compared with a threshold value, and the point is selected only if the value of the curvature is less than that threshold.]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that the at least one curvature threshold comprises a maximum positive curvature threshold, and wherein, the processor circuit is configured to add a new anchor point when the curvature is more positive than the maximum positive curvature threshold according to the teachings of Kim in order to reduce approximation errors in contour information [see column 2, lines 1-2 of Kim]
Regarding claim 10, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kim further discloses wherein the at least one distance threshold comprises a minimum distance threshold, [see column 3, lines 12-25; ] wherein the processor circuit is configured to add the new anchor point only when the distance from an existing anchor point is equal to or greater than the minimum distance threshold. [see FIG. 2A and column 3, lines 12-25; the new point C is added to points A and B if the distance from point C (new point) to line segment AB is more than a predetermined threshold] wherein the existing anchor point and the new anchor point are the adjacent anchor points. [see FIGs. 2A-2C; the point C is adjacent to both points A and B]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such wherein the at least one distance threshold comprises a minimum distance threshold, wherein the processor circuit is configured to add the new anchor point only when the distance from an existing anchor point is equal to or greater than the minimum distance threshold. Wherein the existing anchor point and the new anchor point are adjacent anchor points according to the teachings of Kim in order to reduce approximation errors in contour information [see column 2, lines 1-2 of Kim]
Regarding claim 12, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kim further discloses wherein the at least one distance threshold comprises a minimum distance threshold, [see column 3, lines 12-25; ] wherein the processor circuit is configured to add the new anchor point only when the distance from an existing anchor is equal to or greater than the minimum threshold distance. [see FIG. 2A and column 3, lines 12-25; the new point C is added to points A and B if the distance from point C (new point) to line segment AB is more than a predetermined threshold] wherein the existing anchor point and the new anchor point are the adjacent anchor points. [see FIGs. 2A-2C; the point C is adjacent to both points A and B]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that wherein the at least one distance threshold comprises a minimum distance threshold, wherein the processor circuit is configured to add the new anchor point only when the distance from an existing anchor is equal to or greater than the minimum threshold distance; wherein the existing anchor point and the new anchor point are the adjacent anchor points according to the teachings of Kim in order to reduce approximation errors in contour information [see column 2, lines 1-2 of Kim]
Regarding claim 15, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Li further discloses that the contour does not surround the intraluminal imaging catheter in the intraluminal image. [see FIG. 3 and [0023]; the border is shown with respect to the catheter]
Regarding claim 18, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kim further discloses that the processor circuit is configured to add a new anchor point such that the distance between the adjacent anchor points is different than a distance between a different pair of adjacent anchor points. [This is inherent in a process where the points are generated randomly, the value of two points are not the same in general.]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of LI such that that the processor circuit is configured to add a new anchor point such that the distance between the adjacent anchor points is different than a distance between a different pair of adjacent anchor points according to the teachings of Kim in order to reduce approximation errors in contour information [see column 2, lines 1-2 of Kim]
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0036404) hereinafter “Li” in view of Kim (U.S. Patent No. 5,774,595) hereinafter “Kim” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kitamura et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0051612) hereinafter “Kitamura”
Regarding claim 4, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kitamura, directed towards lumen border detection [see abstract of Kitamura] further discloses that the processor circuit is configured to change the minimum threshold distance. [see [0129-[0130]; the update range determining unit updates the threshold value]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that the processor circuit is configured to change the minimum threshold distance according to the teachings of Kitamura in order to prevent the contour positions from being mis-detected and possibly diagnosed as an abnormal portion [see [0051] of Kitamura]
Regarding claim 5, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kitamura further discloses that the at least one distance threshold comprises a maximum distance threshold, and wherein, the processor circuit is configured to add a new anchor point when the distance from an existing anchor point is equal to or greater than the maximum threshold distance. [see FIG. 2A and column 3, lines 12-25; the new point C is added to points A and B if the distance from point C (new point) to line segment AB is more than a predetermined threshold] wherein the existing anchor point and the new anchor point are the adjacent anchor points. [see FIGs. 2A-2C; the point C is adjacent to both points A and B]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that the at least one distance threshold comprises a maximum distance threshold, and wherein, to determine the location of the second point, the processor circuit is configured to always place the second point when the distance of the contour between the first point and the second point is equal to or greater in magnitude than the maximum threshold distance according to the teachings of Kitamura in order to prevent the contour positions from being mis-detected and possibly diagnosed as an abnormal portion [see [0051] of Kitamura]
Regarding claim 6, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kitamura further discloses that the processor circuit is configured to change the maximum threshold distance. [see [0129]-[0130]; the update range determining unit updates the threshold values]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that the processor circuit is configured to change the maximum threshold distance according to the teachings of Kitamura in order to prevent the contour positions from being mis-detected and possibly diagnosed as an abnormal portion [see [0051] of Kitamura]
Regarding claim 7, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kitamura further discloses that the at least one curvature threshold comprises a maximum negative curvature threshold, and wherein, the processor circuit is configured to add a new anchor point when the curvature is more negative than the maximum negative curvature threshold. [see [0064] and [0070]-[0071] and [0092]; the curvature towards the inside of the boundary is the negative curvature]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that at least one curvature threshold comprises a maximum negative curvature threshold, and wherein, the processor circuit is configured to add a new anchor point when the curvature is more negative than the maximum negative curvature threshold according to the teachings of Kitamura in order to prevent the contour positions from being mis-detected and possibly diagnosed as an abnormal portion [see [0051] of Kitamura]
Claims 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0036404) hereinafter “Li” in view of in view of Kim (U.S. Patent No. 5,774,595) hereinafter “Kim” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toma et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0081142) hereinafter “Toma”.
Regarding claim 11, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Li as modified by Kim does not expressly disclose the processor circuit is configured to add a new anchor point when the curvature changes from a positive sign to a negative sign or from a negative sign to a positive sign.
Toma, directed towards determining the border of the lumen using curvature data [see abstract of Toma] further discloses the processor circuit is configured to add a new anchor point when the curvature changes from a positive sign to a negative sign or from a negative sign to a positive sign. [see FIG. 4B and [0116] of Toma]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that discloses the processor circuit is configured to add a new anchor point when the curvature changes from a positive sign to a negative sign or from a negative sign to a positive sign according to the teachings of Toma in order to automate the contour determination process with higher accuracy [see [0003] of Toma]
Regarding claim 21, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Li as modified by Kim further discloses wherein the at least one distance threshold comprises a minimum distance threshold [see column 3, lines 12-25; ] and a maximum distance threshold, [see column 3, lines 12-25; ] wherein the at least one curvature threshold comprises a maximum positive curvature threshold [see column 4, lines 44-55; the curvature (i.e. second error value) ] and a maximum negative curvature threshold, [see column 4, lines 44-55; the curvature (i.e. second error value)] and wherein the processor circuit is configured to: add a new anchor point only when the distance from an existing anchor point is equal to or greater than the minimum distance threshold; [see FIG. 2A and column 3, lines 12-25; the new point C is added to points A and B if the distance from point C (new point) to line segment AB is more than a predetermined threshold ; further see column 5, lines 17-30; the point with largest curvature is selected]
add the new anchor point when the distance from the existing anchor point is equal to or greater than the maximum distance threshold; [see FIG. 2A and column 3, lines 12-25; the new point C is added to points A and B if the distance from point C (new point) to line segment AB is more than a predetermined threshold ; further see column 5, lines 17-30; the point with largest curvature is selected]
add the new anchor point when the curvature is more positive than the maximum positive curvature threshold; [see column 4, lines 44-55; the curvature (i.e. second error value) is compared with a threshold value, and the point is selected only if the value of the curvature is more than that threshold.]
add the new anchor point when the curvature is more negative than the maximum negative curvature threshold; [see column 4, lines 44-55; the curvature (i.e. second error value) is compared with a threshold value, and the point is selected only if the value of the curvature is more than that threshold.]
Li as modified by Kim does not expressly disclose the processor circuit is configured to add a new anchor point when the curvature changes from a positive sign to a negative sign or from a negative sign to a positive sign.
Toma, directed towards determining the border of the lumen using curvature data [see abstract of Toma] further discloses the processor circuit is configured to add a new anchor point when the curvature changes from a positive sign to a negative sign or from a negative sign to a positive sign. [see FIG. 4B and [0116] of Toma]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that discloses the processor circuit is configured to add a new anchor point when the curvature changes from a positive sign to a negative sign or from a negative sign to a positive sign according to the teachings of Toma in order to automate the contour determination process with higher accuracy [see [0003] of Toma]
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0036404) hereinafter “Li” in view of in view of Kim (U.S. Patent No. 5,774,595) hereinafter “Kim” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (“Super-resolution ultrasound imaging method for microvascular in vivo with a high temporal accuracy”, Scientific Reports, 2018) hereinafter “Yu”.
Regarding claim 13, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Li as modified Kim does not expressly disclose wherein the interpolation comprises a modified Akima piecewise cubic Hermite interpolation between the plurality of points.
Yu, directed towards analyzing images of lumens with high accuracy [see abstract of Yu] further discloses the interpolation comprises a modified Akima piecewise cubic Hermite interpolation between the plurality of points.. [see page 7, last paragraph of the pate disclosing suing the modified Akima cubic Hermite interpolation method to detect the structure of the vascular system]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that the interpolation comprises a modified Akima piecewise cubic Hermite interpolation between the plurality of points according to the teachings of Yu in order to automate the contour determination process with higher accuracy [see [0003] of Toma]
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0036404) hereinafter “Li” in view of in view of Kim (U.S. Patent No. 5,774,595) hereinafter “Kim” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akima (“a new metho of interpolation and smooth curve fitting based on local procedures”, J. of Computing Machinery, Vol. 17, No. 4, 1970)
Regarding claim 14, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Li as modified by Kim discloses, wherein the processor circuit is configured to receive a user input to move a location of an anchor point. [see [0020] of Li disclosing that the user may elect to modify the location of a control point.]
Li as modified by Kim does not expressly disclose that to generate the contour, the processor circuit is configured to perform re-interpolation between the plurality of points,
Akima, directed towards a method of contour determination [see abstract of Akima] further discloses that in order to generate the contour, the processor circuit is configured to perform interpolation between the plurality of points, [see page 591, section under 2.2. re-interpolation between a pair of points]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that the processor circuit is configured to generate the contour, the processor circuit is configured to perform interpolation between the plurality of points according to the teachings of Akima in order to provide an improved method of determining the slope and curvature of the contour. [see page 590], second paragraph]
Response to Arguments
Rejection of claims under U.S.C. 101
In view of the added amendment to the claims, the rejection of claims for being directed towards an abstract idea has been withdrawn.
Rejection of claims under U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them. However, in the argument section, the applicant has merely stated that a few of the limitations are not disclosed in the prior art combination without providing any reasoning. As it is clearly disclosed in the instant office action, all of the limitation are disclosed in the prior art with proper reference. The applicant is advised to present a reasoning as to why they believe some limitations are not covered by the prior art.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARJAN - SABOKTAKIN whose telephone number is (303)297-4278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-5pm CT.
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, Ashley Buran can be reached at (571) 270-5284. 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.
/MARJAN SABOKTAKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights