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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant remarks on pages 10-11 that specification as originally filed provides proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter in figs. 1, 5, and paragraph 23.
However, Examiner notes that, as noted in the objection to the specification, figures only depict schematics from which an actual meaning of the “feature amounts” may be inferred. Applicant further refers to paragraph 23 which states in part that “the feature amount calculation unit 320 calculates three-dimensional feature amounts 301 of the skull and blood vessel of the head 31 of the patient 30 and the medical device based on the first-plane two-dimensional image 311”. However, paragraph 23 does not provide a meaning for the recited “feature amounts” and hence does not provide sufficient support for the recited “feature amounts”.
Applicant further argues on pages 11-13 that the term “feature amounts” refers to values calculated by a feature amount calculation unit, but fails to disclose what the values represent.
Applicant further appears to indicate that the feature amounts relate to the three-dimensional shape characteristics of the skull, blood vessels, and medical device. Examiner contends, however, that this does not stipulate what comprises the shape characteristics of the skull, blood vessels, and medical device for which a value is generated as a variable for subsequent calculations in the claimed invention. Put another way, the feature amounts as claimed represents a variable of an equation for which solution such as the transparency is ultimately calculated. However, because the variable has yet to be clearly defined, it is impossible to arrive at the solution of calculating the transparency. Put another, a synonym for “feature amounts” that has clear and conventional meaning in the field may be used in lieu of the recitation of “feature amounts”.
Withdrawn Objections
Pursuant of Applicant’s amendments filed 02/10/2026, the objections made to claims 1 and 8 have been withdrawn.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The invention discloses ultimately determining and displaying transparency of a blood vessel based on a “feature amounts” of the blood vessel. However, the disclosure fails to describe what comprises “feature amounts” of the blood vessel, nor does the disclosure faithfully describe what features of the blood vessel for which “feature amounts” are extracted to ultimately determine transparency of the blood vessel.
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 1-8 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.
The term “nearby” in line 62 of claim 1 and in lines 65-66 of claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nearby” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The disclosure does not provide what constitutes a “nearby region” that includes the point cloud in the three-dimensional device shape point cloud information and divided into a plurality of groups.
Claims 1 and 8 recite “a feature amount calculation unit configured to calculate three-dimensional feature amounts of the blood vessel and the medical device based on a first-plane two-dimensional image”.
Claims 2-7 are rejected based on their respective dependencies on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The closest prior art of record include US 20140343404 A1 and US 20140375631 A1. While US 20140343404 A1 teaches displaying an imaged area, including blood vessels, and containing a medical device represented by a point cloud, at different transparency levels based on threshold requirements and US20180200003A1 teaches determining a shape and positions of a catheter using cloud of points, the references, even in combination, fail to teach the limitations of claim 1 and 8 as a whole.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Farouk A Bruce whose telephone number is (408)918-7603. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5pm PST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/FAROUK A BRUCE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797