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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2024 and 05/29/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 11 recites “the images” which Examiner suggests amending to “the 2-D images”. Lines 17-18 recite “the selected composite data sources” which Examiner suggests amending to “the selected one or more of the composite data sources”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 recites “the selected composite data sources” which Examiner suggests amending to “the selected one or more of the composite data sources”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 8 recites “the images” which Examiner suggests amending to “the 2-D images”. Lines 15-16 recite “the selected composite data sources” which Examiner suggests amending to “the selected one or more of the composite data sources”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 recites “the selected composite data sources” which Examiner suggests amending to “the selected one or more of the composite data sources”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 8 recites “the images” which Examiner suggests amending to “the 2-D images”. Lines 14-15 recite “the selected composite data sources” which Examiner suggests amending to “the selected one or more of the composite data sources”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 recites “the selected composite data sources” which Examiner suggests amending to “the selected one or more of the composite data sources”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-24 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the values" in Line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to which values are being referred to, the values associated with an index indicative of vascular function (Lines 15-16 of claim 1) or the values included in the selected one or more of the composite data sources (Lines 17-18 of claim 1). Examiner suggests amending to “the values included in the selected one or more of the composite data sources” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the values" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to which values are being referred to, the values associated with an index indicative of vascular function (Lines 15-16 of claim 1) or the values included in the selected one or more of the composite data sources (Lines 17-18 of claim 1). Examiner suggests amending to “the values included in the selected one or more of the composite data sources” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the values" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to which values are being referred to, the values associated with an index indicative of vascular function (Lines 15-16 of claim 1) or the values included in the selected one or more of the composite data sources (Lines 17-18 of claim 1). Examiner suggests amending to “the values included in the selected one or more of the composite data sources” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claims 7 and 9-12 depend on claim 5 and thus are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 13 recites the limitations “the digital memory” in Line 4 and "the values" in Line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a digital memory and it is unclear as to which values are being referred to, the values associated with an index indicative of vascular function (Lines 13-14 of claim 13) or the values included in the selected one or more of the composite data sources (Lines 15-16 of claim 13). Examiner suggests amending the limitations to “a digital memory” and “the values included in the selected one or more of the composite data sources”, respectively, and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the values" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to which values are being referred to, the values associated with an index indicative of vascular function (Lines 13-14 of claim 13) or the values included in the selected one or more of the composite data sources (Lines 15-16 of claim 13). Examiner suggests amending to “the values included in the selected one or more of the composite data sources” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the values" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to which values are being referred to, the values associated with an index indicative of vascular function (Lines 13-14 of claim 13) or the values included in the selected one or more of the composite data sources (Lines 15-16 of claim 13). Examiner suggests amending to “the values included in the selected one or more of the composite data sources” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "The method of claim 21” in Line 1. It is unclear as to whether claim 17 should be a method claim or a computer readable medium claim, since claim 21 recites non-transitory computer storage media. Examiner has interpreted claim 17 to be a method claim, dependent on claim 13 and has interpreted the limitation as “The method of claim 13”.
Claims 15 and 18-20 depend on claim 13 and thus are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 21 recites the limitations “the digital memory” in Line 4 and "the values" in Line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a digital memory and it is unclear as to which values are being referred to, the values associated with an index indicative of vascular function (Lines 12-13 of claim 21) or the values included in the selected one or more of the composite data sources (Lines 14-15 of claim 21). Examiner suggests amending the limitations to “a digital memory” and “the values included in the selected one or more of the composite data sources”, respectively, and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the values" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to which values are being referred to, the values associated with an index indicative of vascular function (Lines 12-13 of claim 21) or the values included in the selected one or more of the composite data sources (Lines 14-15 of claim 21). Examiner suggests amending to “the values included in the selected one or more of the composite data sources” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 23 depends on claim 21 and thus is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the values" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to which values are being referred to, the values associated with an index indicative of vascular function (Lines 12-13 of claim 21) or the values included in the selected one or more of the composite data sources (Lines 14-15 of claim 21). Examiner suggests amending to “the values included in the selected one or more of the composite data sources” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 5-10, 12-18, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lavi et al. (WO 2015/059706).
With regards to claim 5, Lavi et al. discloses a system for preparing vascular parameter data for display comprising:
a digital memory (Page 11 lines 1-8, Page 84 lines 1-4, "memory") including:
a plurality of 2-D images representing respectively at least two separate viewing angles of a cardiac vasculature (Page 17 lines 11-19, Page 21 lines 16-20, Page 36 lines 28-30, where the 2-D images have respective frames of reference and heart vascular content viewed from different angles),
wherein the digital memory stores a 3-D model derived based on the 2-D images (Page 37 lines 14-15, Page 39 lines 20-25, Page 47 lines 11-14, Page 70 lines 23-27, Page 84 lines 1-4, "3-D model" "vascular tree model"); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the digital memory (Page 11 lines 1-8, "processor" "memory"), the processor configured to:
access a plurality of composite data sources, the composite data sources including different image or non-image information, and the composite data sources including information derived based on the images (Page 31 lines 16-17, Page 40 lines 7-10 and 23-26, Page 47 lines 23-29, Page 48 lines 31-32, Page 49 lines 1-4, "1-D graphs"); and
cause presentation of a graphical user interface (Page 47 lines 27-29, "viewing interface"), wherein the graphical user interface
presents a first 2-D image and/or the 3-D model (Page 47 lines 11-15 and 29-32, Page 48 lines 1-2, "3-D model"),
responds to user input indicating selection of one or more of the composite data sources, the composite data sources including at least values associated with an index indicative of vascular function (Page 31 lines 16-17, Page 40 lines 23-26, Page 47 lines 29-32, Page 48 lines 1-2, "1-D graphs", where user input indicates selection of the 1-D graph information for the segment), and
selectively causes presentation of values included in the selected composite data sources as an overlay to the 3-D model, the values being proximate to particular locations anchored along the 3-D model (Page 47 lines 23-32, Page 48 lines 1-2, "display of associated 1-D graph information").
With regards to claim 6, Lavi et al. discloses the system of claim 5, wherein graphical representations associated with the values are anchored along the first 2-D image (Page 47 lines 27-32, Page 48 lines 1-2, "2-D image").
With regards to claim 7, Lavi et al. discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to receive user input causing selection between 2-D images and/or the 3-D model as an anchor for values included in the selected composite data sources (Page 47 lines 23-32, Page 48 lines 1-2, "displayed 3-D model").
With regards to claim 8, Lavi et al. discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the values reflect fractional flow reserve (FFR) values associated with the cardiac vasculature (Page 18 lines 24-27, Page 40 lines 23-26, Page 48 lines 31-32, Page 49 lines 1-4, "FFR").
With regards to claim 9, Lavi et al. discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the graphical user interface includes a control configured to cause presentation of revascularized widths at parts of the cardiac vasculature associated with stenosis (Page 29 lines 31-32, Page 30 lines 1-2, Page 51 lines 8-10, Page 54 lines 16-20, Page 55 lines 26-30, "stenosis" "vascular width" "resvascularized").
With regards to claim 10, Lavi et al. discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the graphical user interface presents an abstracted model associated with a vascular tree (Page 37 lines 14-15, Page 39 lines 20-25, Page 47 lines 11-14, Page 70 lines 23-27, "vascular tree model").
With regards to claim 12, Lavi et al. discloses the system of claim 5, wherein one or more callout tags are presented, the callout tags reflecting segments of the cardiac vasculature associated with clinical significance (Page 1 lines 19-28, Page 47 lines 23-32, Page 48 lines 1-2 and 31-32, Page 49 lines 4-11, Page 70 lines 1-10, "display" "FFR").
With regards to claims 13-18 and 20, they recite the functions of the apparatus of claims 5-10 and 12, respectively, as processes. Thus, the analyses in rejecting claims 5-10 and 12 are equally applicable to claims 13-18 and 20, respectively.
With regards to claims 21-24, they recite the apparatus of claims 5-8, respectively, as a non-transitory computer storage media storing instructions that when executed by a system of one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform functions. Lavi et al. discloses the non-transitory computer storage media (Page 11 lines 1-22, "memory" "data processor" "instructions"). Thus, the analyses in rejecting claims 5-8 are equally applicable to claims 21-24, respectively.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavi et al. (WO 2015/059706) in view of Marchenko et al. (Vascular Editor: From Angiographic Images to 3D Vascular Models).
With regards to claim 11, Lavi et al. discloses the system of claim 5.
Lavi et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the graphical user interface is configured to receive user input selecting a left or right coronary artery tree.
However, Marchenko et al. discloses the concept of a graphical user interface to display vascular models and vessel information, including receiving user input selecting a left or right coronary artery tree in order to allow the user flexibility in what to visualize on the graphical user interface (Page 388: Functionality: Para. 1 lines 1-4, Page 391: Graphical User Interface: Para. 1 lines 1-2, Para. 3 lines 1-3, Para. 7 lines 1-5, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, "vascular model selection" "left" "right" "vessel type" "artery").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of a graphical user interface to display vascular models and vessel information, including receiving user input selecting a left or right coronary artery tree as taught by Marchenko et al. into the system of Lavi et al. The motivation for this would be to allow the user flexibility in what to visualize on the graphical user interface.
With regards to claim 19, it recites the functions of the apparatus of claim 11 as a process. Thus, the analysis in rejecting claim 11 is equally applicable to claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 M-F.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CAROL W CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights