CTNF 18/903,046 CTNF 80108 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "the apparatus of claim 22”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no claim 22. It appears that claim 9 is intended to depend from one of claims 5- 8 since claim 9 references the straightened vessel. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a ) as being anticipated by Applicant Cited EP 4160528 A1 to Tu, et al . With regard to claim 1, Tu discloses an apparatus for a cross-modality side branch matching system, the apparatus, comprising: a processor and a memory storage device coupled to the processor, the memory storage device comprising instructions executable by the processor (paragraphs [0039]-[0040]) , which instructions when executed cause the apparatus to: receive an image frame associated with a vessel of a patient (Fig. 7, S301 and Fig. 12) ; identify, from the image frame based in part on one or more of a plurality of machine learning (ML) models, a location and characteristic of one or more side branches (Fig. 7, S302, and paragraphs [0059] and [0106], Side branch vessels are identified using a neural network. The positions and sizes are used for comparisons to other images and are interpreted as location and characteristic of the side branches. See also Figs. 13-15) ; and match the one or more side branches with one or more side branches identified from a series of images, wherein the image frame and the series of images are captured with different image modalities (paragraphs [0059] and [0105]-[0107], The images of the main branch and side branches are segmented. Paragraph [0059]: “When the angiography image is matched with the OCT or IVUS images, positions, sizes and other information of intersections on the OCT or IVUS images can be compared with positions, sizes and other information of the intersections on the segmented angiography image of the vessels, the angiography image can be matched with intravascular images in position, and the matching between the intravascular images and coronary angiography is realized without changing a current operation process.”). With regard to claim 2, Tu discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the characteristic is an orientation of the one or more side branches, a diameter of the one or more side branches, or both an orientation and a width of the one or more side branches (paragraph [0059], Tu discloses positions, sizes and other information of intersections on the segmented angiography image of the vessels. Tu also discusses calculation of diameters in paragraphs [0007], [0060]-[0063] and [0108]-[0109]). With regard to claim 3, Tu discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the characteristics of orientation and diameter of the one or more side branches are inputs for a cross-modality side branch matching process between extravascular and intravascular imaging modalities, wherein the extravascular imaging modality is x-ray angiography or computed tomography angiography, and wherein the intravascular imaging modality is intravascular ultrasound or intravascular optical coherence tomography (paragraph [0059], Tu discloses OCT and IVUS imaging modalities. Tu further discloses positions, sizes and other information of intersections on the segmented angiography image of the vessels. Tu also discusses calculation of diameters in paragraphs [0007], [0060]-[0063] and [0108]-[0109]). With regard to claim 4, Tu discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the locations of the one or more side branches are inputs for a cross-modality side branch matching process between extravascular and intravascular imaging modalities, wherein the extravascular imaging modality is x-ray angiography or computed tomography angiography, and wherein the intravascular imaging modality is intravascular ultrasound or intravascular optical coherence tomography (paragraph [0059], Tu discloses OCT and IVUS imaging modalities. “When the angiography image is matched with the OCT or IVUS images, positions, sizes and other information of intersections on the OCT or IVUS images can be compared with positions, sizes and other information of the intersections on the segmented angiography image of the vessels, the angiography image can be matched with intravascular images in position, and the matching between the intravascular images and coronary angiography is realized without changing a current operation process.” ). With regard to claim 20, the discussion of claim 1 applies. The method of claim 20 is disclosed in the operating steps performed by the apparatus of claim 1 . 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, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of EP 4 160 528 A 1 to Tu, et al. and USPN 2021/0085275 to Gopinath With regard to claim 13, Tu discloses a computer-readable storage device, comprising instructions executable by a processor of a computing device (paragraphs [0039]-[0040]) coupled to an intravascular imaging device (paragraph [0059], IVUS) [and a fluoroscope device], wherein when executed the instructions cause the computing device to: receive an image frame associated with a vessel of a patient (Fig. 7, S301 and Fig. 12) ; identify, from the image frame based in part on one or more of a plurality of machine learning (ML) models, a location and characteristic of one or more side branches (Fig. 7, S302, and paragraphs [0059] and [0106], Side branch vessels are identified using a neural network. The positions and sizes are used for comparisons to other images and are interpreted as location and characteristic of the side branches. See also Figs. 13-15) ; and match the one or more side branches with one or more side branches identified from a series of images, wherein the image frame and the series of images are captured with different image modalities (paragraphs [0059] and [0105]-[0107], The images of the main branch and side branches are segmented. Paragraph [0059]: “When the angiography image is matched with the OCT or IVUS images, positions, sizes and other information of intersections on the OCT or IVUS images can be compared with positions, sizes and other information of the intersections on the segmented angiography image of the vessels, the angiography image can be matched with intravascular images in position, and the matching between the intravascular images and coronary angiography is realized without changing a current operation process.” ). Tu does not explicitly disclose a fluoroscope device. However using multiple imaging devices in angiographic imagery is well known in the art. Gopinath discloses the use of both intravascular and fluoroscopic imaging devices paragraph [0033] and teaches combining data from different imaging modalities (Figs. 2 and 3 and paragraph [0072]). Therefore it would have been obvious to eon of ordinary skill in the art before time of filing to use the addition of fluoroscopic image data in combination with the imaging of Tu in order to obtain a more complete and accurate angiographic set of imagery. With regard to claim 14, the discussion of claim 14 applies . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 5-12 and 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 5, 9 and 15 contain allowable subject matter and the subsequent dependent claims 6-8 and 10-12 and 16-19 are therefore also objected to as allowable. No found prior art of record teaches the details recited in claims 5 and 15 of using the first and second machine learning models to infer a straightened vessel and identify one or more side branches from the straightened vessel. No found prior art of record teaches or fairly suggests the details recited in claim 9, though it appears that claim 9 should depend from one of claims 5-8 as discussed above in the 112b rejection for lack of antecedent basis. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY J TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7427. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM Monday-Friday. 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 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. /WESLEY J TUCKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/903,046 Page 2 Art Unit: 2661
Prosecution Insights