CTNF 18/867,688 CTNF 91949 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 14 is directed non statutory because it is a claim to a computer program. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a control unit is configured to in clams 14 and 15. 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 § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 – 9, and 11 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi (Publication: WO 2021/153721 A1) in view of Andreas et al. (Publication: WO 2022/022994 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Takeshi discloses computer implemented method for adjusting a morphology of a heart valve model segmented from a 3D or 4D volume data set, the method comprising ( Page 1, paragraph 1 - Fig. 19, This word representation device comprises a storage unit and a word representation generation unit to present its data to the display 30. Page 3 paragraph 1 - The blood flow vector drawn in this cross section should be a projection of the 3D blood flow vector onto the 2D cross section, but the component of the in-plane vector is larger than the component passing through the cross section. Morphology is the study of form and structure. ): providing a 3D visualisation of a segmented heart valve (2) on a user interface ( Page 4 paragraph 4 - They cause flow detachment as the inflow blood flow through the mitral valve during diastole, resulting in a larger radius vortex around the wide anterior leaflet of the valve belly. A torus-shaped vortex is generated three-dimensionally, “ 3D visualization”), wherein the heart valve is segmented from the 3D or 4D volume data set ( Page 3 paragraph 1 - The blood flow vector drawn in this cross section should be a projection of the 3D blood flow vector onto the 2D cross section. As for the eddy current of the left chamber blood flow, it is assumed that the vector and orbit of the flow in this cross section well capture the characteristics of the three-dimensional left chamber flow of a heart. Page 21 paragraph last - The display unit 30 displays the topological data structure extracted from the flow pattern. ), creating a topology-based 2D model (3) of the heart valve, wherein the topology-based 2D model is a simplified visualisation of the characteristics of the heart valve ( Page 3 paragraph 1 - The blood flow vector drawn in this cross section should be a projection of the 3D blood flow vector onto the 2D cross section. As for the eddy current of the left chamber blood flow, it is assumed that the vector and orbit of the flow in this cross section well capture the characteristics of the three-dimensional left chamber flow of a heart valve. Page 27 paragraph last - FIG. 27 (c) is a typical intra-section two-dimensional flow failure pattern often seen in late left ventricular dilatation, which is referred to as “pattern D”. First, pattern B in FIG. 27 (a) is a situation in which a uniform flow flows from bottom to top in the region of interest, “ topology-based 2D model ”. Page 21 paragraph last - The display unit 30 may further show the flow pattern itself in the region of interest by displaying the streamline extracted from the original image of the flow and its singular point, “, “ topology-based 2D model ”. ). displaying the 2D model (3) on the user interface ( Page 21 paragraph last - The display unit 30 displays the topological data structure extracted from the blood flow pattern. ) adjusting the 2D model (3) ( Page 21 paragraph last - The display unit 30 displays the topological data structure extracted from the blood flow pattern. Page 33 paragraph last 2 - a display unit for displaying a topological data structure extracted from the flow pattern. The streamline structure of the given flow pattern is extracted, characters are added to the extracted streamline structure based on the correspondence stored in the storage unit, and the extracted streamline structure is added. ). Takeshi does not however Andreas discloses receiving user input data for adjusting via the user interface ( Page 17 paragraph 2 - the rotation marker 54 may comprise three markings, such as lines, that are visible to an operator and each aligned with commissural posts 35a-c of a prosthesis 30 when the prosthesis 30 is collapsed inside the intervention device. Lines are made up of points on the display. ) . Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takeshi in view of Andreas with receiving user input data for adjusting via the user interface as taught by Andrea. The motivation for doing is to improve patient outcome. Regarding claim 2, Takeshi in view of Andrea disclose all the limitation of claim 1. Takeshi discloses created by mapping the segmented heart valve (2) to scale onto a plane ( Page 3 paragraph 1 - The blood flow vector drawn in this cross section should be a projection of the 3D blood flow vector onto the 2D cross section. As for the eddy current of the left chamber blood flow, it is assumed that the vector and orbit of the flow in this cross section well capture the characteristics of the three-dimensional left chamber flow, “ mapping the segmented … to scale onto a plane ”. Page 30 paragraph last 2 - FIG. 28 is a streamline visualization of the left ventricular intracardiac blood flow in the phase between the early and middle contractions analyzed by ultrasonic VFM (vector flow mapping), that is, the phase in which the aortic valve begins to be released. ). Regarding claim 3, Takeshi in view of Andrea disclose all the limitation of claim 1. Takeshi discloses displayed on the user interface of the segmented heart valve ( Page 21 paragraph last - The display unit 30 displays the topological data structure extracted from the flow pattern. Page 30 paragraph last 2 - FIG. 28 is a streamline visualization of the left ventricular intracardiac blood flow in the phase between the early and middle contractions analyzed by ultrasonic VFM (vector flow mapping), that is, the phase in which the aortic valve begins to be released. Page 2 paragraph 1 - regarding the blood flow in the heart, the blood flow velocity distribution in the heart is acquired by the technique of acquiring the blood flow velocity distribution from the ultrasonic measurement cross section and displaying the streamline (see Patent Document 3), and the cardiac MRI. , A technique for displaying a streamline in a lumen or a cross section (see Patent Document 4) is disclosed. ). Andrea discloses 2D model is displayed on the user interface next to the 3D ( Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 - Page 39 Paragraph 4 - The GUI further comprises an implantation plane display 82. This is a 2D simulation of the implantation plane of the aortic root 17, for example, as it might appear on a 2D fluoroscopy image. Such an image may be computed from the 3D anatomical model data, for example. The anatomical representation in the implantation plane display 82 is geometrically registered to the 3D anatomical model data used to generate the vascular route display 81. Page 40 Paragraph 2 - Optionally, a ray-based projection algorithm may be used to generate a prediction 85 of the appearance of the traces of the radiopaque markers in the 2D fluoroscopy view of the implantation plane display 82 based on the projected location of the prosthesis in the 3D anatomical model data. The rotation of the prosthesis 30 relative to the 3D anatomical model may be generated using an algorithm according to the first aspect, with the prior knowledge of the desired optimal prosthesis rotation angle at the deployment location, thus “2D is displayed next to the 3D”.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takeshi in view of Andreas with 2D model is displayed on the user interface next to the 3D as taught by Andrea. The motivation for doing is to improve patient outcome. Regarding claim 4, Takeshi in view of Andrea disclose all the limitation of claim 1. Takeshi discloses includes commissure points (4) defining at least one commissure line (5) being indicative of a separating line between at least two leaflets (6) of the heart valve ( It is cut along the anterior-posterior axis so as Page 4 paragraph 2 - to cross the commissure of the mitral valve, and becomes an exit, and the cross section is cut line-symmetrically at the center of the anterior-posterior valve apex of the mitral valve on the posterior wall side to form a boundary line, “ separating line between at least two leaflets of the heart valve ”. It is knows that mitral valve is considered a two-leaflet heart valve. ). Regarding claim 5, Takeshi in view of Andrea disclose all the limitation of claim 4. Takeshi discloses comprises instructions to [[modify a position]] of at least one commissure point (4) of the topology-based 2D model ( Page 4 paragraph 2 - to cross the commissure of the mitral valve, and becomes an exit, and the cross section is cut line-symmetrically at the center of the anterior-posterior valve apex of the mitral valve on the posterior wall side to form a boundary line. At these boundaries, the mitral valve is a source boundary during diastole and the aortic valve is a sink boundary during systole. Display, Page 30 paragraph last 2 - FIG. 28 is a streamline visualization of the left ventricular intracardiac blood flow, in which the aortic valve begins to be released. Page 27 paragraph last - FIG. 27 (c) is a typical intra-section two-dimensional flow failure pattern often seen in late left ventricular dilatation, which is referred to as “pattern D”. First, pattern B in FIG. 27 (a) is a situation in which a uniform flow flows from bottom to top in the region of interest, “ topology-based 2D model ”. Page 21 paragraph last - The display unit 30 may further show the flow pattern itself in the region of interest by displaying the streamline extracted from the original image of the flow and its singular point, “, “ topology-based 2D model ”. ). Andrea discloses instructions to modify a position of at least one point ( Page 40 Paragraph 2 - Optionally, a ray-based projection algorithm may be used to generate a prediction 85 of the appearance of the traces of the radiopaque markers in the 2D fluoroscopy view of the implantation plane display 82 based on the projected location of the prosthesis in the 3D anatomical model data. The rotation of the prosthesis 30 relative to the 3D anatomical model may be generated using an algorithm according to the first aspect, with the prior knowledge of the desired optimal prosthesis rotation angle at the deployment location, thus rotation changes position .). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takeshi in view of Andreas with instructions to modify a position of at least one point as taught by Andrea. The motivation for doing is to improve patient outcome. Regarding claim 6, Takeshi in view of Andrea disclose all the limitation of claim 4. Takeshi discloses wherein the on both the topology-based 2D model (3) and the 3D visualisation of the segmented heart valve ( Page 4 paragraph 4 - They cause flow detachment as the inflow blood flow through the mitral valve during diastole, resulting in a larger radius vortex around the wide anterior leaflet of the valve belly. A torus-shaped vortex is generated three-dimensionally, “ 3D visualization” Page 27 paragraph last - FIG. 27 (c) is a typical intra-section two-dimensional flow failure pattern often seen in late left ventricular dilatation, which is referred to as “pattern D”. First, pattern B in FIG. 27 (a) is a situation in which a uniform flow flows from bottom to top in the region of interest, “ topology-based 2D model ”. Page 21 paragraph last - The display unit 30 may further show the flow pattern itself in the region of interest by displaying the streamline extracted from the original image of the flow and its singular point. ). Andreas discloses the commissure points (4) and the commissure lines (5) are displayed ( Page 17 paragraph 2 - the rotation marker 54 may comprise three markings, such as lines, that are visible to an operator and each aligned with commissural posts 35a-c of a prosthesis 30 when the prosthesis 30 is collapsed inside the intervention device. Lines are made up of points on the display. ) . Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takeshi in view of Andreas with the commissure points (4) and the commissure lines (5) are displayed as taught by Andrea. The motivation for doing is to improve patient outcome. Regarding claim 7, Takeshi in view of Andrea disclose all the limitation of claim 4. Takeshi discloses add a new [[point]] and/or to delete a [[point]] ( Page 1 paragraph 1 - deleting the extracted streamline structure, until the route is reached. The COT representation generation means converts the tree representation configured ). Andreas discloses commissure point ( Page 17 paragraph 2 - the rotation marker 54 may comprise three markings, such as lines, that are visible to an operator and each aligned with commissural posts 35a-c of a prosthesis 30 when the prosthesis 30 is collapsed inside the intervention device. Lines are made up of points on the display. ) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takeshi in view of Andreas with commissure point as taught by Andrea. The motivation for doing is to improve patient outcome. Regarding claim 8, Takeshi in view of Andrea disclose all the limitation of claim 4. Takeshi discloses includes the plurality of leaflets (6) defined by the at least one commissure line( Page 4 paragraph 2 - cut along the anterior-posterior axis so as to cross the commissure of the mitral valve, and becomes an exit, and the cross section is cut line-symmetrically at the center of the anterior-posterior valve apex of the mitral valve on the posterior wall side to form a boundary line. At these boundaries, the mitral valve is a source boundary during diastole and the aortic valve is a sink boundary during systole, unless valve regurgitation is present. It is knows that mitral valve is considered a two-leaflet heart valve. ) Andreas discloses labelling [[the plurality of leaflets]] ( Page 17 paragraph 2 - the rotation marker 54 may comprise three markings, such as lines, that are visible to an operator and each aligned with commissural posts 35a-c of a prosthesis 30 when the prosthesis 30 is collapsed inside the intervention device. Lines are made up of points on the display. ) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takeshi in view of Andreas with labelling [[the plurality of leaflets]] as taught by Andrea. The motivation for doing is to improve patient outcome. Regarding claim 9, Takeshi in view of Andrea disclose all the limitation of claim 1. Takeshi discloses includes a structure surrounding the heart valve ( Page 21 paragraph last - The display unit 30 displays the topological data structure extracted from the blood flow pattern. Page 2 paragraph 5 - FIG. 1 shows the periodic movements of blood flow, blood pressure, and heart valve associated with contraction / expansion of the heart (left ventricle) in normal dissection (visceral orientation, atrioventricular connection, large vessel connection orientation). Normally, in the left ventricle, the mitral valve, which is the atrioventricular valve at the entrance of blood flow, and the aortic valve, which is the semilunar valve, which is the exit of blood flow, repeatedly open and close, and the following four phases are displayed. ). Regarding claim 11, Takeshi in view of Andrea disclose all the limitation of claim 1. Takeshi discloses projecting a flow phenomenon (7) on the 3D visualisation of the heart valve (2) based on flow information ( Page 21 paragraph last - The display unit 30 displays the topological data structure extracted from the flow pattern. Page 3 paragraph 1 - The blood flow vector drawn in this cross section should be a projection of the 3D blood flow vector onto the 2D cross section. As for the eddy current of the left chamber blood flow, it is assumed that the vector and orbit of the flow in this cross section well capture the characteristics of the three-dimensional left chamber flow of a heart. ), identifying a location on the topology-based 2D model (3) corresponding to a location of the of the flow phenomenon ( Page 21 paragraph last - The display unit 30 displays the topological data structure extracted from the flow pattern, “ based 2D model ”. Page 21 paragraph last - The display unit 30 may further display the COT expression generated by the COT expression generation means 23 in addition to the topological data structure. The display unit 30 may further fill and display the eddy current region corresponding to the COT expression. Page 21 paragraph last - The display unit 30 may further show the flow pattern itself in the region of interest by displaying the streamline extracted from the original image of the flow and its singular point. Further, when the flow pattern is a flow pattern of intraventricular blood flow, the display unit 30 may further display an ultrasonic VFM (vector flow mapping) image or a blood flow velocity vector. ); and providing a marker at the identified location ( Page 24 paragraph 1 - After assigning the COT representation, remove the structure from the orbital structure and replace it with the label . By replacing the label in this way, it is possible to express that the structure "does not have" inside, and it is possible to convert the upper structure including the extracted structure into the innermost structure. This operation is continued until all 0-dimensional structures are exhausted, “ providing a marker ”. Page 21 paragraph last - The display unit 30 may further display the COT expression generated by the COT expression generation means 23 in addition to the topological data structure. Page 25 paragraph 2 - (Step 2) Next, the innermost (that is, labeled as without a structure inside) one-dimensional structure and two-dimensional structure are searched from the ss-saddle connection diagram in the region of interest Ω, “ identified location ”. ). Regarding claim 12, Takeshi in view of Andrea disclose all the limitation of claim 11. Takeshi discloses includes a computer graphical representation of flow phenomenon (7) indicative of the magnitude of the flow phenomenon (7) , particularly iso-lines, vector field, streamlines and/or a colour map ( Page 21 paragraph last - The display unit 30 may further show the flow pattern itself in the region of interest by displaying the streamline extracted from the original image of the flow and its singular point. Further, when the flow pattern is a flow pattern of intraventricular blood flow, the display unit 30 may further display an ultrasonic VFM (vector flow mapping) image or a blood flow velocity vector. ). Regarding claim 13, Takeshi in view of Andrea disclose all the limitation of claim 11. Takeshi discloses receiving indicative of a location on the model in which no marker should be displayed ( Page 24 paragraph 1 - After assigning the COT representation, remove the structure from the orbital structure and replace it with the label . By replacing the label in this way, it is possible to express that the structure "does not have" inside, and it is possible to convert the upper structure including the extracted structure into the innermost structure. This operation is continued until all 0-dimensional structures are exhausted, “ no marker should be displayed ”. Page 21 paragraph last - The display unit 30 may further display the COT expression generated by the COT expression generation means 23 in addition to the topological data structure. Page 25 paragraph 2 - (Step 2) Next, the innermost (that is, labeled as without a structure inside) one-dimensional structure and two-dimensional structure are searched from the ss-saddle connection diagram in the region of interest Ω, “ indicative of a location ”. ). Andreas discloses receiving user input ( Page 17 paragraph 2 - the rotation marker 54 may comprise three markings, such as lines, that are visible to an operator and each aligned with commissural posts 35a-c of a prosthesis 30 when the prosthesis 30 is collapsed inside the intervention device. Lines are made up of points on the display. ) Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takeshi in view of Andreas with receiving user input as taught by Andrea. The motivation for doing is to improve patient outcome. Regarding claim 14, see rejection on claim 1. Regarding claim 15, see rejection on claim 1 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi (Publication: WO 2021/153721 A1) in view of Andreas et al. (Publication: WO 2022/022994 A1) and Langeland (Publication; US 2020/0098125 A1) . Regarding claim 10, Takeshi in view of Andrea disclose all the limitation of claim 1. Takeshi discloses wherein the visualisation of a segmented heart valve is a [[dynamical 4D visualization]] of the heart valve ( Page 21 paragraph last - The display unit 30 displays the topological data structure extracted from the blood flow pattern. Page 2 paragraph 5 - FIG. 1 shows the periodic movements of blood flow, blood pressure, and heart valve associated with contraction / expansion of the heart (left ventricle) in normal dissection (visceral orientation, atrioventricular connection, large vessel connection orientation). Normally, in the left ventricle, the mitral valve, which is the atrioventricular valve at the entrance of blood flow, and the aortic valve, which is the semilunar valve, which is the exit of blood flow, repeatedly open and close, and the four phases are displayed. ). Takeshi in view Andreas do not however Langeland discloses dynamical 4D visualisation of the heart valve ( [0039] - may automatically superimpose a marker on a mitral valve of the heart detected in 4D volume renderings presented at the display system 134 based on the coordinates identifying the mitral valve associated with the volume renderings by the structure recognition module 160. ). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takeshi in view of Andreas with dynamical 4D visualisation of the heart valve as taught by Langeland. The motivation for doing is to improve efficiency . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING WU whose telephone number is (571)270-0724. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays: 9:30am - 6:00pm EST . 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, Devona Faulk can be reached on 571-272-7515. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MING WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618 Application/Control Number: 18/867,688 Page 2 Art Unit: 2618
Prosecution Insights