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 .
Notice to Applicants
This communication is in response to the Application filed on 10/24/2024.
Claims 4-15 are newly added and pending. Claims 1-3 are canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/10/2020, 5/13/2021 and 12/3/2021 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 9-13 are dependent from claim 1. Claim 1 has been canceled in the preliminary amendment. Please have these claims be dependent from claim 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
claims 7-8 line 1 recite “…wherein he geometric parameter…”. This ought to be “…wherein the geometric parameter…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4, for example, recites “further display a scale associating colors of the displayed color map with the values displayed by the color map”.
Claim 4 further recites “distribution of index values”.
There seems to have no description in the specification on what the ‘scale associating colors’ are and how the colors of the displayed color map of are displayed. Specification at page 10, referring to Fig. 4, discloses “function 152 allocates different colors to values of the vascular geometric parameter, and colors the graphic 41 illustrating an analysis model in accordance with spatial distribution of the values”. However, this does not describe the recited steps in the pending claims “further display a scale associating colors of the displayed color map with the values displayed by the color map” and “distribution of index values”. Claims 14-15 are similarly rejected. Dependent claims 5-13 are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 4-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea - mathematical concept/formulation) without significantly more. Claim 14 is used as an example.
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Prong One: Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Prong Two: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application;
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
With regard to (1), the instant claims recite an apparatus, a method, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, therefore the answer is "yes".
With regard to (2A), Prong One: Yes. When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the instant claims are directed to a Judicial Exception – an abstract idea belonging to the group of mathematical concept and mental process. The steps of “displaying”, are generically recited because there is no description of how this is accomplished. It can be interpreted as merely looking at the data and outputting for others. There is nothing in the claim that requires more than an operation that a human, armed with the appropriate apparatus executing a mathematical concept cannot perform.
Claims recites “acquiring distribution of values” and “acquiring of index values”. These steps are steps reciting generic mental steps of ‘acquiring’ and perhaps to an extent of “determining” these values by simple math concepts. The data acquired and processed is used to analyze a structure, perform some analysis and simply display what is being acquired and analyzed.
With regard to (2A), Prong Two: No. The instant claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception of “acquiring distribution of values” and “acquiring of index values”, and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The use of an apparatus/processor to acquire/receive “data” at a high level of generality such that said “data” can be used in the operation of the recited judicial exception (the mental step of “acquiring”). Supplying “data” (i.e., “displaying”) does not provide for “integration” of the abstract idea into a practical application, as said data do not change the way in which said apparatus operates. There are no specifics on how the data is received from the coronary artery region. This can be interpreted as “visualization”. Even if this step is by an “apparatus for fluid analysis in the blood vessel” that may be, for example, X-ray CT apparatus. X-ray CT is well known in the field and receiving data from such is also well known.
The steps of “acquiring distribution of values” and “acquiring of index values” are interpreted as a mental step of math formulation because it is using ‘acquired’ data to calculate the distribution of values. The processor is a generic tool to perform the steps recited in the claims, one can do these steps using a generic computer, as recited. There is nothing in the claim that is recited that is integrally requires a specific processor to perform such steps.
In conclusion, the claim as a whole does not provide for “integration” of the abstract idea into a practical application.
With regard to (2B), the pending claims do not show what is more than a routine in the art presented in the claims, i.e., the additional elements are nothing more than routine and well-known steps. There is no improvement to technology here. There is only a “acquiring” and “displaying” steps, and it has not been shown that the mental process allows the “technology” to do something that it previously was not able to do.
With regard to claims 5-10 and 12-15, similar analysis is applied and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These claims are similarly rejected for the same reasons discussed in view of steps recited in claim 1 and not repeated herewith.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 12-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,650,522 (‘522 patent) in view of US 2009/0016483 A1 to Kawasaki et al. Claim 4 is used as an example below in the table below.
Present Application No., 18/925,738
U. S. Patent No., 10,650,522
4. (New) An apparatus for fluid analysis in a blood vessel based on analysis of a coronary artery image, the apparatus comprising: processing circuitry configured to
1. A medical image processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to:
acquire image data including a coronary artery region of a subject;
acquire image data including a coronary artery region of a subject;
acquire a distribution of values of a geometric parameter obtained by analyzing a structure of the coronary artery region;
acquire distribution of values of a geometric parameter obtained by analyzing a structure of the coronary artery region;
acquire a distribution of index values related to a pressure of the coronary artery region obtained by performing fluid analysis on the coronary artery region;
acquire distribution of index values related to a pressure of the coronary artery region obtained by performing fluid analysis on the coronary artery region; and
display, on a display, the acquired distribution of the values of the geometric parameter and the acquired distribution of the index values related to the pressure of the coronary artery region on an image representing the coronary artery region;
display the distribution of the values of the geometric parameter and the distribution of the index values related to the pressure of the coronary artery region on an image representing the coronary artery region.
and display the index values related to the pressure of the coronary artery region or the values of the geometric parameter by a color map, and
8. (Original) The medical image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to color the image representing the coronary artery region in accordance with the values of the geometric parameter or the index values related to the pressure of the coronary artery region, and switch, based on an operation from an operator, between display and non-display of each of the distribution of the values of the geometric parameter and the distribution of the index values related to the pressure of the coronary artery region.
further display a scale associating colors of the displayed color map with the values displayed by the color map.
Kawasaki et al. teaches display a scale associating colors of the displayed color map with the values displayed by the color map (paragraphs [0163]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘522 patent reference’s claims to have display a scale of color map of Kawasaki et al’s reference. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to have information be displayed in a superimposed manner as rendered in different color arrangement of the color scale, as suggested by Kawasaki et al. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,398,063 – discloses a medical image diagnostic apparatus that includes a storage memory, processing circuitry, and a display. The storage memory stores data of a plurality of FFR distribution maps constituting a time series regarding a coronary artery, and data of a plurality of morphological images corresponding to the time series. The processing circuitry converts the plurality of FFR distribution maps into a plurality of corresponding color maps, respectively. The display displays a plurality of superposed images obtained by superposing the plurality of color maps and the plurality of morphological images respectively corresponding in phase to the plurality of color maps. The display restricts display targets for the plurality of color maps based on the plurality of FFR distribution maps or the plurality of morphological images.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEFALI D. GORADIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM, Friday 8AM-12PM.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
SHEFALI D. GORADIA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/SHEFALI D GORADIA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights