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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0316758), referred herein as Yagi, in view of Keleshis et al. (LabVIEW Graphical User Interface for a New High Sensitivity, High Resolution Micro-Angio-Fluoroscopic and ROI-CBCT System; 2008); referred herein as Keleshis.
Regarding claim 1, Yagi teaches a computing system configured to display visual indications of vascular blood flow, comprising: a processor; a display; and memory comprising instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to (fig 1; processor 6, display 14, memory 5; paragraph 102, lines 1-19; paragraph 103, the last 6 lines):
generate a plurality of graphical elements comprising a visual indication of blood flow, wherein the plurality of graphical elements includes a reconstruction of one or more subject blood vessels, displaying media including an angiographic image, a graphical representation of blood flow information, and an index for vascular function (figs 2, 17, and 24; paragraphs 107 and 111; paragraph 115, lines 1-10; paragraph 129, lines 1-8; paragraphs 131 and 135; paragraphs 155 and 173; graphical elements comprising a visual indication of blood flow are generated, which include a reconstruction of blood vessels, displayed angiographic images, graphical representation of blood flow information, and an index for vascular function); and
generate a graphical user interface (GUI) based in part on the plurality of graphical elements, and cause the GUI to be displayed on the display (figs 1, 2, and 24; paragraph 102, lines 6-19; paragraph 107; paragraph 124; a graphical user interface is generated and displayed that shows the graphical elements).
Yagi teaches displaying media including the angiographic image (see citations above), and also teaches obtaining and displaying sub-vascular function (see, for example, figures 6 and 18; paragraph 118, the last 10 lines; paragraphs 142 and 143). However, Yagi does not explicitly teach replaying the media, or indication of microvascular function.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Keleshis teaches a computing system configured to display visual indications of vascular blood flow, comprising a processor, display, and memory configured to generate a plurality of graphical elements comprising a visual indication of blood flow (figs 4, 5, 7, and 9; abstract, lines 1-12; section 2.3, the first paragraph; section 2.3.3), wherein the graphical elements further comprise replaying media including an angiographic image, and an index for microvascular function (figs 7, 9, 11; abstract, lines 1-3; section 2.1, the first paragraph; section 2.3.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the media replay and microvascular representations of Keleshis with the media display and vascular representations of Yagi because this provides a user-friendly way for angiographers to visualize smaller details and have better situational awareness, thereby enabling more accurate diagnoses (see, for example, Yagi, abstract, the last 4 lines; section 3, the final paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, Yagi in view of Keleshis teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of graphical elements further includes one or more visual indications of blood flow rate (Yagi, fig 2; paragraph 102, lines 1-19; paragraph 107; paragraph 131, lines 1-12 and the last 7 lines; paragraph 155).
Regarding claim 3, Yagi in view of Keleshis teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the reconstruction of the one or more subject blood vessels is a 3D reconstruction (Yagi, paragraph 102, lines 1-19; paragraph 115, lines 1-10; paragraphs 131 and 141).
Regarding claim 4, Yagi in view of Keleshis teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the reconstruction of the one or more subject blood vessels is a 2D reconstruction (Yagi, paragraph 133; paragraphs 174 and 176).
Regarding claim 5, Yagi in view of Keleshis teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the reconstruction of the one or more subject blood vessels is modeled in real-time (Yagi, paragraphs 139 and 195; Keleshis, abstract, lines 1-7; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Yagi in view of Keleshis teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the replaying media includes an option to toggle between displaying right carotid artery information and left carotid artery information (Yagi, paragraphs 113 and 114; paragraph 119; paragraph 121, lines 1-12; Keleshis, section 3, the first paragraph and figure 13; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Yagi in view of Keleshis teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the graphical representation of blood flow information presents one or more of a blood pressure, a microvascular pressure, a blood pressure gradient, a microvascular blood pressure gradient, a fractional flow reserve analysis result, or a fractional flow reserve analysis computation (Yagi, paragraphs 134 and 135; paragraph 139, lines 1-12; paragraph 158; paragraphs 183 and 184).
Regarding claim 8, Yagi in view of Keleshis teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the index for microvascular function includes an index characterizing microvascular resistance (Yagi, paragraphs 186 and 187; paragraph 189; Keleshis, abstract, lines 1-3; section 2.1, the first paragraph; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Yagi in view of Keleshis teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the index for microvascular function is presented in a gauge (Yagi, figs 24 and 29; paragraphs 170 and 173; paragraph 189).
Regarding claim 10, Yagi in view of Keleshis teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the gauge includes a color gradient representing a severity of the microvascular resistance (Yagi, figs 24 and 29; paragraphs 170 and 173; paragraph 189).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the limitations of these claims substantially correspond to the limitations of claims 1 and 2, respectively; thus they are rejected on similar grounds as their corresponding claims.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 3 (or 4); thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the limitations of these claims substantially correspond to the limitations of claims 8 and 9, respectively; thus they are rejected on similar grounds as their corresponding claims.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the limitations of these claims substantially correspond to the limitations of claims 1 and 2, respectively; thus they are rejected on similar grounds as their corresponding claims.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 3 (or 4); thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the limitations of these claims substantially correspond to the limitations of claims 8 and 9, respectively; thus they are rejected on similar grounds as their corresponding claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented above. The Examiner agrees that the previously cited art does not explicitly teach the newly amended features of replaying the media or microvascular function; however, the Examiner respectfully submits that Keleshis teaches these limitations.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Min (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0392065); Systems, methods, and devices for medical image analysis, diagnosis, risk stratification, decision making and/or disease tracking.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID T WELCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30-5:30 EST, and alternate Fridays, 9:00-2:30 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
DAVID T. WELCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/DAVID T WELCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights