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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/23/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Double Patenting
Claims 1 and 18 of this application are patentably indistinct from claims 1, 19 and 20 of Application No. 18/822,855. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
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.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 20 and 19 of copending Application No. 18/822,855 (Kim et al) and in view of Dutta et al (US20180336676, hereinafter “Dutta”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is disclosed in the copending application since the copending application and the instant application are claiming common subject matter as follows:
18/991,923
18/822,855
Claim 1. A method for generating an aneurysm region performed by an electronic device, comprising:
obtaining, by at least one processor, input images;
generating, by the at least one processor, a vessel mesh based on the input images;
determining, by the at least one processor, an adhered vessel from the vessel mesh; and separating, by the at least one processor, the adhered vessel…
(an adhered vessel is understood to be the same as a kissing vessel in light of the instant specifications [00192])
Claim 1. (Currently Amended) A method for generating an aneurysm region comprising:
obtaining an input image;…
and Claim 20 An electronic device comprising:a processor;…
Claim 1…generating a vessel mesh based on the input image;…
and Claim 20 An electronic device comprising:a processor;…
Claim 19….determining a kissing vessel in contact with the aneurysm region; and separating the kissing vessel.
Regarding Claim 1: Claims 1, 19 and 20 of Application no. 18/822,855 Kim et al teach the limitations of independent claim 1 and the instant application but fails to disclose based on user input.
Dutta et al teaches separating, by the at least one processor, ([0034] “In one implementation, computer system 201 comprises a processor device or central processing unit (CPU)”) the adhered vessel based on user input. ([0042] “eliminates vessels that are indirectly connected to the aneurysm… enable selection of the aneurysm dome point in the volumetric image data via a user interface presented at workstation 234.” Dutta’s indirectly connected vessel which is connected to the aneurysm is understood to be the same as the claimed adhered vessel in light of instant specifications [0191-0192])
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to have separating the adhered vessels based on user input as taught by Dutta to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been so that (Dutta et al [0032] “the aneurysm segmentation unit generates segmentation results that are much more accurate and shows minimal amount of leak outside the actual aneurysm.”)
Claim 18 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of copending Application No. 18/822,855. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is disclosed in the copending application since the copending application and the instant application are claiming common subject matter as follows:
18/991,923
18/822,855
Claim 18.
An electronic device comprising: a processor and a memory connected to the processor, wherein the memory is configured to store a program, wherein the processor is configured to execute the program, and when the program is executed, the steps of the method according to claim 1 are implemented.
Claim 20. (Currently Amended)
An electronic device comprising: a processor; and a memory connected to the processor, wherein the memory is configured to store a program, the processor is configured to execute the program, and when the program is executed by the processor, the method according to claim 1 are implemented.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smiricinschi et al. (US20210015373, hereinafter “Smiricinschi”) and in view of Dutta et al (US20180336676, hereinafter “Dutta”)
Claim 1. Smiricinschi teaches A method for generating an aneurysm region performed by an electronic device, comprising: obtaining, by at least one processor, ([0263] “the instructions being executable by one or more processors to perform the operations described herein.”) input images; ([0149] “the image apparatus 110 from FIG. 1 provides the images”) generating, by the at least one processor, a vessel mesh based on the input images; ([0146] “The virtual skeleton model 400 is created by the skeletonization module 102 from an exemplary blood vessel network 402 of a patient.” And [0149] “the image apparatus 110 from FIG. 1 provides the images used to create a model of the blood vessel network 402.” And [0116] “virtual skeleton model of the blood vessel network is at least created in part based on images taken of the blood vessel network.”)
Smiricinschi does not explicitly teach determining, by the at least one processor, an adhered vessel from the vessel mesh; and separating, by the at least one processor, the adhered vessel based on user input.
Dutta teaches determining, by the at least one processor, ([0035] “The computer-readable program code is executed by CPU 204 to process data acquired by, for example, imaging device 230.”) an adhered vessel from the vessel mesh; ([0054] “determine the borderline of the kissing vessel and aneurysm surface.”) and separating, by the at least one processor, the adhered vessel ([0050] “eliminates any kissing vessel with a large connection with the aneurysm in the combined mask. Kissing vessels with small connection (e.g., 2 voxels wide) with the aneurysm are eliminated by the cleanup performed in previous steps.”) based on user input. ([0042] “eliminates vessels that are indirectly connected to the aneurysm… enable selection of the aneurysm dome point in the volumetric image data via a user interface presented at workstation 234.” Dutta’s indirectly connected vessel which is connected to the aneurysm is understood to be the same as the claimed adhered vessel in light of instant specifications [0191-0192])
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smiricinschi to have separating the adhered vessels based on user input as taught by Dutta to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been so that (Dutta et al [0032] “the aneurysm segmentation unit generates segmentation results that are much more accurate and shows minimal amount of leak outside the actual aneurysm.”)
Claim 18. Smiricinschi and Dutta teach and when the program is executed, the steps of the method according to claim 1 are implemented.
Smiricinschi teaches An electronic device comprising: a processor and a memory connected to the processor, wherein the memory is configured to store a program, ([0140] “program, software, stored in the memory 204 (e.g., a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) and executed by the CPU 202 to process data.”) wherein the processor is configured to execute the program, ([0140] “general-purpose computer system that becomes a specific purpose computer system when executing the subroutine, routine, program, software, stored in the memory 204.”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-17 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.
Dutta et al US20180336676 discloses eliminating kissing vessel connected to the aneurysm by detecting a crown shape based on a center point of the aneurysm dome point but does not render obvious the claimed combination as a whole.
Smiricinschi et al US20210015373 discloses identifying a cutting plane based on a point and ellipse measurements as well as a dome height and width but does not render obvious the claimed combination as a whole.
Hirohata et al US20150245776 discloses calculating a torsion angle in the center line of each node to analyze and track an aneurysm and its forcible displacement to the blood vessel wall surface but does not render obvious the claimed combination as a whole.
Cárdenes et al “Automatic Aneurysm Neck Detection Using Surface Voronoi Diagrams” discloses vessel segmentation for automatic aneurysm detection but does not render obvious the claimed combination as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Cárdenes et al “Automatic Aneurysm Neck Detection Using Surface Voronoi Diagrams” discloses vessel segmentation for automatic aneurysm detection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OWAIS MEMON whose telephone number is (571)272-2168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:00am - 4:00pm) CST.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/OWAIS I MEMON/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
