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 .
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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: “image obtainer” in claim 5.
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.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 8-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,211,250 to Kweon et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Kweon et al. claims the claimed invention as follows:
Claim 1 Kweon et al.
1. A vascular image processing method performed by a processor comprising:
extracting, from a vascular image, a first vascular region which is a region comprising a target vessel included in the vascular image and a branch vessel connected to the target vessel, and a second vascular region which is a region comprising the target vessel, respectively; and
predicting a vascular structure in the vascular image, based on the first vascular region, and the second vascular region, which are extracted from the vascular image
wherein the predicting of the vascular structure comprises overlapping the first vascular region, and the second vascular region with each other.
1. A vascular image processing method performed by a processor comprising:
extracting a first vascular region which is a region including a target vessel, a branch vessel connected to the target vessel, and a separate vessel disconnected from the target vessel, a second vascular region which is a region including the target vessel …; and
predicting a vascular structure in the vascular image, based on the first vascular region, the second vascular region … which are extracted from the vascular image;
wherein the predicting of the vascular structure comprises predicting a region corresponding to the target vessel in the vascular image by overlapping the first vascular region, the second vascular region … with each other (See for example, claim 1 at Col. 15 lines 28-47).
Claim 2 Kweon et al.
2. The vascular image processing method of claim 1,
wherein the predicting of the vascular structure comprises classifying each point corresponding to a blood vessel in the vascular image into the target vessel, and a branch vessel connected to the target vessel.
2. The vascular image processing method of claim 1,
wherein the predicting of the vascular structure comprises classifying each point corresponding to a blood vessel in the vascular image into the target vessel, the one or more branch vessels connected to the target vessel … (i.e., claim 2 at Col. 15 lines 47-52).
Claim 3 Kweon et al.
3. The vascular image processing method of claim 1,
wherein the extracting comprises:
extracting, from the first vascular region, a cross region comprising at least one of a region comprising a branch point where a branch vessel branches off and a region where different blood vessels overlap with each other; and
extracting the second vascular region from the vascular image, based on the extracted cross region.
3. The vascular image processing method of claim 1,
wherein the extracting comprises:
… extracting, from the first vascular region, a cross region comprising at least one of a region comprising a branch point where a branch vessel branches off and a region where different blood vessels overlap with each other; and
extracting the second vascular region … from the vascular image, based on the extracted cross region (i.e., claim 3 at Col. 15 lines 53-65).
Claim 4 Kweon et al.
4. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 1.
8. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method comprising the steps of:
extracting a first vascular region which is a region including a target vessel, a branch vessel connected to the target vessel, and a separate vessel disconnected from the target vessel, a second vascular region which is a region including the target vessel …; and
predicting a vascular structure in the vascular image, based on the first vascular region, the second vascular region … which are extracted from the vascular image;
wherein the predicting of the vascular structure comprises predicting a region corresponding to the target vessel in the vascular image by overlapping the first vascular region, the second vascular region … with each other (i.e., claim 8 at Col. 16 lines 31-51).
Claim 5 Kweon et al.
5. A vascular image processing apparatus comprising:
an image obtainer configured to obtain a vascular image; and
a processor configured to:
extract, from the vascular image, a first vascular region which is a region comprising a target vessel included in the vascular image and a branch vessel connected to the target vessel, and a second vascular region which is a region comprising the target vessel, respectively, and
predict a vascular structure in the vascular image, based on the first vascular region, and the second vascular region, which are extracted from the vascular image
wherein the processor is configured to overlap the first vascular region, and the second vascular region with each other.
9. A vascular image processing apparatus comprising
an image obtainer configured to obtain a vascular image; and
a processor configured to
extract a first vascular region which is a region including a target vessel, a branch vessel connected to the target vessel, and a separate vessel disconnected from the target vessel, a second vascular region which is a region including the target vessel and the branch vessel connected to the target vessel … and
predict a vascular structure in the vascular image, based on the first vascular region, the second vascular region, and … which are extracted from the vascular image,
wherein the processor is configured to predict a region corresponding to the target vessel in the vascular image by overlapping the first vascular region, the second vascular region … with each other (See for example, claim 9 at Col. 16 line 53 through Col. 17 line 8).
Claim 6 Kweon et al.
6. The vascular image processing apparatus of claim 5,
wherein the processor is configured to classify each point corresponding to a blood vessel in the vascular image into the target vessel, and a branch vessel connected to the target vessel.
10. The vascular image processing apparatus of claim 9,
wherein the processor is configured to classify each point corresponding to a blood vessel in the vascular image into the target vessel, the one or more branch vessels connected to the target vessel … (i.e., claim 10 at Col. 17 lines 9-14).
Claim 7 Kweon et al.
7. The vascular image processing apparatus of claim 5,
wherein the processor is configured to extract, from the first vascular region, a cross region comprising at least one of a region comprising a branch point where a branch vessel branches off and a region where different blood vessels overlap with each other, and extract the second vascular region from the vascular image, based on the extracted cross region.
11. The vascular image processing apparatus of claim 9,
wherein the processor is configured to
… extract, from the first vascular region, a cross region comprising at least one of a region comprising a branch point where a branch vessel branches off and a region where different blood vessels overlap with each other, and extract the second vascular region … from the vascular image, based on the extracted cross region (i.e., claim 11 at Col. 17 lines 14-23).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0104173).
Re claims 1, 4 and 5: Guo et al. disclose a vascular image processing method performed by a processor/a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor (i.e., “Another aspect of the present disclosure provides a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium may include at least one set of instructions instruct the at least one processor to perform a method of determining blood vessel information in an image”, Paragraph [0019]), cause the processor to perform a vascular image processing method performed by a processor/vascular image processing apparatus (i.e., “image processing system”, Paragraph [0039]) comprising:
an image obtainer configured to obtain a vascular image (i.e., “The medical image may be a medical image acquired by scanning the target blood vessel with a medical scanning device using a medical imaging technique”, Paragraph [0078]; and “the medical imaging technique may be a vascular imaging technique. In some embodiments, the vascular imaging technique may include Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA), Magnetic Resonance Angiography (MRA), Digital Subtraction Angiography (DSA), etc.”, Paragraph [0079]); and
a processor configured to (i.e., “processing device 120”, Paragraph [0039]):
extract/extracting, from the vascular image, a first vascular region which is a region comprising a target vessel included in the vascular image and a branch vessel connected to the target vessel (i.e., “In 404, the processing device 120A may determine the first portion of the plurality of branches of the target blood vessel from the image data”, Paragraph [0082]), and a second vascular region which is a region comprising the target vessel, respectively (i.e., “the processing device 120A may determine the second portion of the plurality of branches of the target blood vessel from the image data”, Paragraph [0100]), and
predict/predicting a vascular structure in the vascular image, based on the first vascular region, and the second vascular region, which are extracted from the vascular image (i.e., “In 408, the processing device 120A may determine the target blood vessel based on the first portion of the branches and the second portion of the branches”, Paragraph [0113])
wherein the processor is configured to overlap/overlapping the first vascular region, and the second vascular region with each other (i.e., Paragraph [0104]; and “within an actual physical space range, the branches of the arterial blood vessel and the branches of the venous blood vessel on both sides of the intersection points may overlap in space at the intersection points. The processing device 120A may differentiate between the second portion of branches of the arterial blood vessel and the second portion of branches of the venous blood vessel based on the intersection points”, [0110]).
Re claims 2 and 6: Guo et al. disclose wherein the predicting of the vascular structure comprises classifying/wherein the processor is configured to classify each point corresponding to a blood vessel in the vascular image into the target vessel, and a branch vessel connected to the target vessel (i.e., “determining the first portion of branches of the arterial blood vessel (e.g., the main branch of the arterial blood vessel) and the first portion of branches of the venous blood vessel (e.g., the main branch of the venous blood vessel) from the image data may include classifying the first portion of the branches of the image data into the first portion of branches of the arterial blood vessel (e.g., the main branch of the arterial blood vessel) and the first portion of branches of the venous blood vessel (e.g., the main branch of the venous blood vessel)”, Paragraph [0086]; and “determining the second portion of branches of the arterial blood vessel (e.g., the one or more thin branches of the arterial blood vessel) and the second portion of branches of the venous blood vessel (e.g., the one or more thin branches of the venous blood vessel) from the image data may include classifying the second portion of the branches of the image data into the second portion of branches of the arterial blood vessel (e.g., the thin branches of the arterial blood vessel) and the second portion of branches of the venous blood vessel (e.g., the one or more thin branches of the venous blood vessel)”, Paragraph [0102]).
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 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. in view of Kang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0278243). The teachings of Guo et al. and Kang et al. have been discussed above.
As to claims 3 and 7, Guo et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the extracting comprises: extracting/wherein the processor is configured to extract, from the first vascular region, a cross region comprising at least one of a region comprising a branch point where a branch vessel branches off and a region where different blood vessels overlap with each other; and extracting/extract the second vascular region from the vascular image, based on the extracted cross region.
Kang et al. teaches a processor configured to (i.e., “one or more processors 2810”, Paragraph [0373]) extracting/extract, from the first vascular region, a cross region comprising at least one of a region comprising a branch point where a branch vessel branches off and a region where different blood vessels overlap with each other (i.e., “geometry has been extracted from images (e.g., Poker Chips™ have been obtained from image information), the locations of the voxels within the cross-section corresponding to the Poker Chip™ are known”, Paragraph [0192]; and Paragraphs [0194]-[0195]); and extracting/extract the second vascular region from the vascular image, based on the extracted cross region (i.e., “assess whether the vessel structure at the target location is symmetric with respect to its cross-section (likely no branch point) or asymmetric in this respect (branch point candidate)”, Paragraph [0224]).
Guo et al. and Kang et al. are analogous art because they are from the field of digital image processing for analyzing vascular structures.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Guo et al. by incorporating the extracting, from the first vascular region, of a cross region comprising at least one of a region comprising a branch point where a branch vessel branches off and a region where different blood vessels overlap with each other, and extracting the second vascular region from the vascular image, based on the extracted cross region, as taught by Kang et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to assess quantitative geometry of the structure that can be used to diagnose disease, assess efficacy of treatment and/or perform other analyses of the structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kang et al. with Guo et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 3 and 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE M TORRES whose telephone number is (571)270-1356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM 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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at 571-272-2976. 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.
/JOSE M TORRES/Examiner, Art Unit 2664 09/30/2026
Prosecution Insights