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 Status
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-11, 14, 15-19, 22-25, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samady (US 11341645 B2) in view of Tu (US 11064897 B2) and in further view of De Nisco (De Nisco, G., Tasso, P., Calò, K., Mazzi, V., Gallo, D., Condemi, F., ... & Morbiducci, U. (2020). Deciphering ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm hemodynamics in relation to biomechanical properties. Medical engineering & physics, 82(1), 119-129. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2020.07.003).
Claim(s) 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samady (US 11341645 B2) in view of Tu (US 11064897 B2), De Nisco (De Nisco, G., Tasso, P., Calò, K., Mazzi, V., Gallo, D., Condemi, F., ... & Morbiducci, U. (2020). Deciphering ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm hemodynamics in relation to biomechanical properties. Medical engineering & physics, 82(1), 119-129. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2020.07.003) and in further view of Grass (US 20170105694 A1).
Claim(s) 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samady (US 11341645 B2) in view of Tu (US 11064897 B2), De Nisco (De Nisco, G., Tasso, P., Calò, K., Mazzi, V., Gallo, D., Condemi, F., ... & Morbiducci, U. (2020). Deciphering ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm hemodynamics in relation to biomechanical properties. Medical engineering & physics, 82(1), 119-129. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2020.07.003) and in further view of Huo (US 20210275124 A1).
Claim(s) 12 and 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samady (US 11341645 B2) in view of Tu (US 11064897 B2), De Nisco (De Nisco, G., Tasso, P., Calò, K., Mazzi, V., Gallo, D., Condemi, F., ... & Morbiducci, U. (2020). Deciphering ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm hemodynamics in relation to biomechanical properties. Medical engineering & physics, 82(1), 119-129. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2020.07.003) and in further view of Zheng (Zheng, S., Meiying, T., & Jian, S. (2010). Sequential reconstruction of vessel skeletons from X-ray coronary angiographic sequences. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, 34(5), 333-345. DOI: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2009.12.004).
Claim 13 and 27 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 and any other withstanding rejections are resolved.
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 1-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. US 12190504 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “calculating a WSS descriptor…including a topological shear variation index” renders the claims as broadened and obvious variants of the patented claims. Therefore, the claims are anticipated by the patented claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-5, 8-11, 14, 15-19, 22-25, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samady (US 11341645 B2) in view of Tu (US 11064897 B2) and in further view of De Nisco (De Nisco, G., Tasso, P., Calò, K., Mazzi, V., Gallo, D., Condemi, F., ... & Morbiducci, U. (2020). Deciphering ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm hemodynamics in relation to biomechanical properties. Medical engineering & physics, 82(1), 119-129. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2020.07.003).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Samady discloses [Claim 1: A computer-implemented method, comprising: (Samady: Col 1 lines 49-50 “the methods may include a computer-implemented method of determining a risk of myocardial infarction…” )
utilizing one or more computers configured to execute specific program instructions for, retrieving patient specific image data; (Samady: Col 1 lines 52-54 “the method may include receiving a patient-specific coronary model of at least a portion of a vasculature of the patient.” )]
[Claim 15: A system, comprising: (Samady: Col 1 lines 43-45 “there is a need for systems, softwares and methods that can identify coronary lesion(s) that is predictive of myocardial infarction,”)
memory to store program instructions; (Samady: Col 11 lines 17-18 “the system 100 may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program”)
a processor that, when executing the program instructions, is configured to: (Samady: Col 22 lines 9-10 “The system 500 may include one or more processors 512.”)
retrieve patient specific image data; (Samady: Col 1 lines 52-54 “the method may include receiving a patient-specific coronary model of at least a portion of a vasculature of the patient.”) ]
creating a 3D reconstruction of a vessel of interest from the patient specific image data, wherein the vessel of interest represents a subset of a coronary tree that includes a lesion, (Samady: Col 6 lines 62-64 “In some embodiments, the geometrical representation may be a multi-dimensional (3-D or 4-D) digital model of the spatial volume of one or more arterial segments.” Col 8 lines 39-45 “the device 130 may include a lesion site identification unit 136 that (i) can be configured to determine one or more lesion sites disposed along one or more arterial segments of the coronary model and/or (ii) configured to retrieve or receive the location and/or information associated with one or more lesion sites from another device, such as the patient data record system 120.”) wherein the coronary tree includes a branching vessel that is not included in the 3D reconstruction; (Samady: Col 19 lines 22-34 “By way of example, the user may modify the coronary model to assess one or more treatments, e.g., medical, percutaneous or coronary interventions (e.g., revascularization (e.g., placing a coronary stent at a lesion site (e.g., virtual stenting to thereby remove one or more stenosis)), simulate the effect of progression or regression of the lesion (or other disease), in one or more of the coronary arterial segments represented in the geometrical representation. Then, a computational analysis may be performed to generate an updated coronary model and one or more risk indices, for example, to determine whether there is a reduction in the one or more risk indices if the treatment option(s) is adopted.” The updated model can include additional branching vessels that were not in the first 3D reconstruction.)
identifying a branching vessel from the patient specific image data; (Samady: Col 7 lines 10-12 “The one or more arterial segments may include a portion of one or more arteries and one or more branches that extend therefrom”)
projecting the branching vessel onto the 3D reconstruction of the vessel of interest; (Samady: Col 20 lines 24-29 “The step 420 may include generating a patient specific geometrical representation for one or more arterial segments using the image data. In some embodiments, the geometrical representation may be a multi-dimensional (e.g., 3-D or 4-D) digital model of the spatial volume of one or more arterial segments” )
calculating anatomical parameter based at least in part on a portion of the 3D reconstruction that includes the lesion; (Samady: Col 8 lines 39-45 “the device 130 may include a lesion site identification unit 136 that (i) can be configured to determine one or more lesion sites disposed along one or more arterial segments of the coronary model and/or (ii) configured to retrieve or receive the location and/or information associated with one or more lesion sites from another device, such as the patient data record system 120.”)
assigning a boundary condition to the surface of the vessel of interest based on the first and second flows; and (Samady: Col 7 lines 52-55 “Each vessel wall boundary condition may be a value or a range of values for velocity, flow rate, pressure, any combination thereof, or other characteristic”)
calculating a wall shear stress (WSS) descriptor, based on the 3D reconstruction and the boundary condition, for a segment of a surface of the vessel that includes the lesion; (Samady: Col 1 line 62 to Col 2 line 3
“The method may also include determining one or more characteristics for at least one section of the one or more sections of each lesion site using at least the one or more characteristics associated with the at least one arterial segment. The one or more characteristics for the at least one section may include one or more force hemodynamic characteristics. The one or more hemodynamic force characteristics for the at least one section may include at least wall shear stress (WSS).”)
Samady fails to specifically disclose calculating first and second flows within the vessel of interest proximal and distal, respectively, to the branching vessel based on the anatomical parameter;
wherein the WSS descriptor includes information regarding an amount of variation in contraction or expansion applied at surface elements within the segment during at least a portion of a cardiac cycle.
In related art, Tu discloses calculating first and second flows within the vessel of interest proximal and distal, respectively, to the branching vessel based on the anatomical parameter; (Tu: Col 6 lines 41-49 “a method of computing fractional flow reserve (FFR) of a blood vessel segment, comprising: receiving geometry parameters of a blood vessel segment having a proximal end and a distal end, the geometrical parameters comprising a first geometrical parameter representing a cross-sectional area (or diameter) of the blood vessel segment at the proximal end, a second geometrical parameter representing a cross-sectional area (or diameter) of the blood vessel segment at the distal end,”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate measuring flow through a vessel on the proximal and distal ends disclosed by Tu into the method of identifying characteristics that can predict myocardial infarction disclosed by Samady to evaluate the physiological function of a blood vessel with a lesion to aid in diagnosis of a potential myocardial infarction.
In related art, De Nisco discloses wherein the WSS descriptor includes information regarding an amount of variation in contraction or expansion applied at surface elements within the segment during at least a portion of a cardiac cycle. (De Nisco: Fig. 2(a) and Section 2.4 “WSS vector τ. Eq. (1), neglecting the WSS vector magnitude variation, identifies the WSS spatial contraction/expansion configuration patterns”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate determining information regarding contraction or expansion based on the calculated WSS information disclosed by De Nisco into the method of identifying characteristics that can predict myocardial infarction disclosed by Samady to determine if information extracted from the WSS can indicate the risk of rupture.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Samady, as modified by Tu and De Nisco, disclose wherein
[Claim 16: the processor is further configured to: (Samady: Col 22 lines 9-10 “The system 500 may include one or more processors 512.”)]
assigning a difference between the first and second flow to the branching vessel; and (Tu: Col 6 lines 41-49 “The present invention also provides a method of computing fractional flow reserve (FFR) of a blood vessel segment, comprising: receiving geometry parameters of a blood vessel segment having a proximal end and a distal end, the geometrical parameters comprising a first geometrical parameter representing a cross-sectional area (or diameter) of the blood vessel segment at the proximal end, a second geometrical parameter representing a cross-sectional area (or diameter) of the blood vessel segment at the distal end…)
assigning the boundary condition to the surface of the vessel of interest based on the difference. (Samady: Col 7 lines 52-55 “Each vessel wall boundary condition may be a value or a range of values for velocity, flow rate, pressure, any combination thereof, or other characteristic” Instant application defines “the difference” as fractional flow reserve which is a calculation using two flow rates. Samady discloses using flow rates to determine the boundary condition.)
Regarding claim 3, Samady, as modified by Tu and De Nisco disclose wherein the identifying the branching vessel (Samady: Col 7 lines 10-12 “The one or more arterial segments may include a portion of one or more arteries and one or more branches that extend therefrom”) comprises utilizing a machine learning system for detecting the branching vessel. (Samady: Col 6-7 lines 67-8 “In some embodiments, the coronary model, the boundary conditions, and/or values of one or more characteristics and/or information may be generated, calculated, measured, and/or obtained using any available methods including…machine learning”)
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Samady, as modified by Tu and De Nisco, disclose wherein
[Claim 18: wherein the processor is further configured to assign, (Samady: Col 22 lines 9-10 “The system 500 may include one or more processors 512.”)]
the assigning the boundary condition includes assigning, as an inlet boundary condition, (Samady: Col 7 lines 44-45 “By way of example, the boundary conditions for each segment may include inflow boundary condition”) a dynamic profile of blood velocity across a cross section of the vessel at a proximal side of the 3D reconstruction, wherein the blood velocity varies with time within a cardiac cycle. (De Nisco: Section 2.3 “Boundary conditions were prescribed using patient-specific 4D flow MRI measurements. In detail, measured fully 3D phase velocity data were extracted along the cardiac cycle and imposed in terms of Dirichlet inflow boundary conditions (BCs) at the ascending aorta (AAo) inlet section (as detailed in our earlier work [33]).”)
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Samady, as modified by Tu and De Nisco, disclose wherein the dynamic profile of blood velocity is defined in part based on the anatomical parameter. (De Nisco: Section 2.3 " In detail, measured fully 3D phase velocity data were extracted along the cardiac cycle” Fig. 1 discloses anatomical data is used to define vessel geometry, hemodynamic variables, and wall mechanical properties)
Regarding claims 8 and 22, Samady, as modified by Tu and De Nisco disclose wherein
[Claim 22: the processor is further configured to calculate (Samady: Col 22 lines 9-10 “The system 500 may include one or more processors 512.”)]
further comprising calculating a myocardial infarction (MI) index based on the WSS descriptor and the anatomical parameter, the MI index representing a likelihood that the lesion will result in an MI. (Samady: Col 8 lines 5-15 “In some embodiments, the device 130 may include a risk index determination unit 138 that may be configured to determine one or more risk indices associated with each lesion site using at least the one or more hemodynamic force characteristics. The one or more risk indices may be indicative of a probability of a myocardial infarction event due to the lesion site. In some embodiments, the one or more risk indices for each lesion site may be based on at least one or more hemodynamic force characteristics associated with one or more sections of that lesion site.”)
Regarding claims 9 and 23, Samady, as modified by Tu and De Nisco disclose wherein
[Claim 23: to calculate the MI index, the processor is further configured to (Samady: Col 22 lines 9-10 “The system 500 may include one or more processors 512.”)]
the calculating the MI index includes calculating a weighted sum of the WSS descriptor and the anatomical parameter. (Samady: Col 10 lines 16-25 “By way of example, the risk index determination unit 138 may be configured to determine the one or more risk indices associated with a lesion site using at least the WSS value determined for one or more sections of the lesion site. In some embodiments, the one or more risk indices for a lesion site may also be based on at least another characteristic of the one or more characteristics determined for one or more sections of the lesion site (e.g., one or more pressure characteristics (e.g., FFR)), stenosis index, one or more lesion characteristics, among others, or any combination thereof.” )
Regarding claims 10 and 24, Samady, as modified by Tu and De Nisco, disclose wherein the MI index represents the likelihood that the lesion will rupture. (Samady: Col 5 lines 61-65 “FIG. 1 shows a system 100 that can determine one or more risk indices associated with a lesion site indicative of a probability of a myocardial infarction due to the lesion site using at least one or more hemodynamic force characteristics associated with one or more sections of the lesion site”)
Regarding claims 11 and 25, Samady, as modified by Tu and De Nisco disclose wherein
[Claim 25: the processor is further configured to: (Samady: Col 22 lines 9-10 “The system 500 may include one or more processors 512.”)]
further comprising dividing the vessel into a lesion segment, an upstream segment and a downstream segment, the lesion segment including a region of the vessel having a minimum lumen area (MLA) and delimited by proximal and distal boundaries, the upstream segment extending proximally from the proximal boundary by a proximal length that has a predetermined relation to a diameter of the vessel at the proximal boundary, the downstream segment extending distally from the distal boundary by a distal length that has a predetermined relation to a diameter of the vessel at the distal boundary. (Samady: Col 14 lines 64-67 “the segmenting may be based on a location of that lesion site relative to the arterial segment, minimal lumen area, among others, or any combination thereof.”; Col 15 lines 9-10 “the proximal section may be closest to the inflow boundary (upstream)”; Col 15 lines 12-13 “the distal section may closest to the outflow boundary (downstream)”; Col 15 lines 20-28 “In some embodiments, the upstream and/or downstream sections may be of same size or length of the other sections (e.g., proximal, intermediate, or distal); a different size, or any combination thereof. For example, the size or length of the upstream and/or downstream section may be determined based on the size of the proximal, intermediate and/or distal sections; based on a fixed distance (e.g., defined by the user, the stenosis index, among others, or any combination thereof); based on other factors; or any combination thereof.”; Col 7 lines 32-38 the coronary model unit 132 may be configured to determine geometrical information for each boundary for each segment using the generated geometric representation. In some embodiments, the geometrical information may include but is not limited to radius, diameter, circumference, area, among others, or any combination thereof.”)
Regarding claims 14 and 28, Samady, as modified by Tu and De Nisco, wherein the vessel of interest represents one of a single vessel, bifurcation, a branching vessel or vessel tree. (Samady: Fig. 3A, Col 18 lines 35-37 “FIG. 3A shows an example of angiographic image projections 300” )
Regarding claim 17, Samady, as modified by Tu and De Nisco disclose wherein the processor is further configured to utilize a machine learning system (Samady: Col 6-7 lines 67-8 “In some embodiments, the coronary model, the boundary conditions, and/or values of one or more characteristics and/or information may be generated, calculated, measured, and/or obtained using any available methods including…machine learning”) to detect the branching vessel. (Samady: Col 7 lines 10-12 “The one or more arterial segments may include a portion of one or more arteries and one or more branches that extend therefrom”)
Claim(s) 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samady (US 11341645 B2) in view of Tu (US 11064897 B2), De Nisco (De Nisco, G., Tasso, P., Calò, K., Mazzi, V., Gallo, D., Condemi, F., ... & Morbiducci, U. (2020). Deciphering ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm hemodynamics in relation to biomechanical properties. Medical engineering & physics, 82(1), 119-129. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2020.07.003) and in further view of Grass (US 20170105694 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Samady, as modified by Tu and De Nisco, disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the dynamic profile of blood velocity is defined in part based on contrast propagation derived from the patient specific image data of the vessel of interest.
In related art, Grass discloses the dynamic profile of blood velocity is defined in part based on contrast propagation derived from the patient specific image data of the vessel of interest. (Grass: ¶3 “The apparatus comprises a means for generating an anatomical model of a coronary artery from medical image data and a means for estimating a velocity of blood in the coronary artery based on a spatio-temporal representation of contrast agent propagation in the medical image data.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate utilizing a contrast agent to determine blood velocity disclosed by Grass into the method of identifying characteristics that can predict myocardial infarction disclosed by Samady to determine how blood velocity can aid in assessing coronary artery disease.
Claim(s) 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samady (US 11341645 B2) in view of Tu (US 11064897 B2), De Nisco (De Nisco, G., Tasso, P., Calò, K., Mazzi, V., Gallo, D., Condemi, F., ... & Morbiducci, U. (2020). Deciphering ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm hemodynamics in relation to biomechanical properties. Medical engineering & physics, 82(1), 119-129. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2020.07.003) and in further view of Huo (US 20210275124 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Samady, as modified by Tu and De Nisco disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the inlet boundary condition represents the dynamic profile of the blood velocity while the patient is in a hyperemic state.
In related art, Huo discloses the inlet boundary condition represents the dynamic profile of the blood velocity while the patient is in a hyperemic state. (Huo: ¶46 “calculating total flow at the coronary artery inlet in a maximum hyperemia state, calculating a blood flow velocity V.sub.1 in the hyperemia state, and determining the coronary FFR.” )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate calculating flow velocity during a hyperemic state disclosed by Huo into the method of identifying characteristics that can predict myocardial infarction disclosed by Samady to determine how blood flow velocity can influence diagnosis of coronary heart disease.
Claim(s) 12 and 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samady (US 11341645 B2) in view of Tu (US 11064897 B2), De Nisco (De Nisco, G., Tasso, P., Calò, K., Mazzi, V., Gallo, D., Condemi, F., ... & Morbiducci, U. (2020). Deciphering ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm hemodynamics in relation to biomechanical properties. Medical engineering & physics, 82(1), 119-129. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2020.07.003) and in further view of Zheng (Zheng, S., Meiying, T., & Jian, S. (2010). Sequential reconstruction of vessel skeletons from X-ray coronary angiographic sequences. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, 34(5), 333-345. DOI: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2009.12.004).
Regarding claim 12 and 26, Samady, as modified by Tu and De Nisco, disclose the claimed invention except for wherein further comprising repeating the 3D reconstruction for multiple moments in time along at least a portion of a cardiac cycle to form a 3D+t reconstruction, the anatomical parameter calculated based at least in part on a portion of the 3D+t reconstruction.
In related art, Zheng discloses
[Claim 26: the processor is further configured to (Samady: Col 22 lines 9-10 “The system 500 may include one or more processors 512.”)]
further comprising repeating the 3D reconstruction for multiple moments in time along at least a portion of a cardiac cycle to form a 3D+t reconstruction, the anatomical parameter calculated based at least in part on a portion of the 3D+t reconstruction. (Zheng: Section 1.2 “reconstruct vessel centerlines and their optical flow fields at each time-point along the sequence,”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate creating a 3D reconstruction of a vessel at each time point during a cardiac cycle disclosed by Zheng into the method of identifying characteristics that can predict myocardial infarction disclosed by Samady to calculate anatomical parameters at each time point in the cardiac cycle such that the information can be used to diagnose and treat cardiovascular disease.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 and 27 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 and any other withstanding rejections are resolved.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ma (US 20190304592 A1) discloses a device, a system, and a computer-readable medium for calculating vessel flow parameters based on angiography. In one implementation, the device includes a processor and a memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the following operations: selecting a plurality of template frames from the angiographic images to generate a 3D model for a vessel; determining a start frame and an end frame in the plurality of angiographic images showing a contrast filling process; determining corresponding locations of front ends of the contrast in the start frame and the end frame in the 3D model of the vessel; calculating a vessel volume between the determined locations of the front ends in the 3D model; and determining an average blood flow rate based on the calculated volume, and a time interval between the start frame and the end frame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL KIM MAIDEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1264. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at 4089187630. 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.
/MICHAEL KIM MAIDEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights