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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 04, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular boxes in FIGS.6-7, S630-650 and S710- shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. See MPEP 608. 02(b).II: a reason for objection of the drawings may include that the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings "should be provided with descriptive text labels".
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 1-10 are drawn to a “system” which describes one of the four statutory categories, i.e., a machine.
Claim 12 is directed to a “method” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process.
Claims 16 are drawn to a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” which describes one of the four statutory categories, i.e., a manufacture.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One:
Claims 1, 12 and 16 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), substantially as follows: “predict/estimate, based on the spectral input imagery, an increase or decrease in flow caused by the presence of contrast agent”.
In claims 1 and 16, the above recited steps can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper. If a person were to visually examine, i.e., perform an observation, the spectral input imagery acquired with a presence of contrast agent, either in a printout or an electronic format, he/she would be able to identify an increase or decrease in flow, if any, based on the presence or absence, the homogeneity or degree of contrast enhancement or opacification on the region of interest in the imagery data, depending on the type of the contrast agent. There is nothing recited in the claim to suggest an undue level of complexity in how the increase or decrease in flow is estimated/predicted. Therefore, a person would be able to perform the prediction and estimation mentally.
Prong Two: Claims 1, 12 and 16 do not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites additional steps of (1) receive input data including spectral input imagery of at least a part of a vascular system of a patient, the spectral input imagery based on data reconstructable from projection data acquired by a spectral imaging apparatus of the tomographic type, with presence of contrast agent in the part of the vascular system; (2) provide output data indicative of the predicted flow increase or decrease; (3) a memory that stores a plurality of instructions and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the plurality of instructions.
The steps in (1) represent merely data gathering or pre-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception. A conventional CT angiography system uses a tomographic type of spectral imaging apparatus to acquire projection data and reconstruct the projection data to imagery.
The step in (2) represents merely outputting by a processor as a post-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality.
In regard to the step in (3), a claim that requires a memory and processor executing instructions may still recite a mental process. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C.: “Performing a mental process on a generic computer, in a computer environment, or using a computer as a tool to perform the steps are considered a mental process”.
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea and to output the result of the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on conventionally used tools. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the estimation or prediction is not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 1, 12 and 16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite additional steps of (1) receive input data including spectral input imagery of at least a part of a vascular system of a patient, the spectral input imagery based on data reconstructable from projection data acquired by a spectral imaging apparatus of the tomographic type, with presence of contrast agent in the part of the vascular system; (2) provide output data indicative of the predicted flow increase or decrease; (3) a memory that stores a plurality of instructions and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the plurality of instructions. These steps represent mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality.
For similar reasons set forth in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Accordingly, these additional steps amount to no more than insignificant conventional extra-solution activity. Mere insignificant conventional extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims hence are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims incorporate all the limitations of their respective independent claims. The following analysis focuses on the limitations recited in the dependent claims to determine whether they merely recite further abstract idea, or whether or not they recite additional elements that may either amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in their respective independent claims, or may integrate the abstract idea in their respective independent claims to a practical application.
The following dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons as stated in the analysis for their respective independent claims, hence are patent ineligible:
measure a medical quantity of interest based on the spectral input imagery and the output data (claims 2 and 5) – with a similar consideration, he/she may examine the spectral input imagery and the output data (i.e., the estimation of the increase or decrease in flow) and arrive a medical quantity of interest by comparing with a reference value or a look-up table;
combine information from the spectral input imagery with information based on the output data (claim 3) – with a similar consideration, he/she may examine together the spectral input imagery and the output data; and
Correcting or normalizing based on the output data, an initial measurement of the medical quantity of interest (claim 4) – to correct or to normalize is considered a mental process.
The following dependent claims merely further describe the extra-solution activities and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons as stated in the analysis for their respective independent claims, hence are patent ineligible:
describing the outputting to be either a visualizer such as a display or an alert (claim 6);
describing an additional post-solution activity with high generality (claim 7). It does not provide any information as to how the output data is used to issue a control signal, and what the medical equipment is, but instead covers any possible way to control a medical equipment that is not even part of the claimed system. As such, there are no meaningful constrains on this controlling step. This limitation is at most an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception;
describing an intrinsic property of the vascular system that is not part of the recited system (claim 8);
describing an additional element used for the predicting step (claim 9). The trained model is used as a tool when performing the abstract idea without placing any limitation on how the model is trained and how it operates. The limitation amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f);
further describing the spectral imaging apparatus (claim 10).
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Based on the above consideration and analysis, claims 1-10, 12 and 16 are patent ineligible, i.e., rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because, for claim 2, the specification, while being enabling for the medical quantity of interest to be a hemodynamic quantity, it does not reasonably provide enablement for any type of medical quantity. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “predict, based on the spectral input imagery, an increase or decrease in flow caused by the presence of contrast agent”. This limitation is a computer/processor-implemented functional claim limitation as it is directed to a processor executed instructions. Yet the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed functions, i.e., how to predict something that is already occurred (i.e., “increase or decrease in flow caused by the presence of contrast agent), in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. It is not enough to disclose that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention, these claims are rejected for lack of written description. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP §§ 2161, 2162-2163.07(b).
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
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 1-10, 12 and 16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line 8, claim 12 line 4, and claim 16 line 6 recite “the tomographic type” that lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites “predict, based on the spectral input imagery, an increase or decrease in flow caused by the presence of contrast agent” that renders the scope of the claim indefinite. To “predict” is to estimate something that will happen in the future (i.e., it has not happened yet). “an increase or decrease in flow caused by the presence of contrast agent” is a flow condition that has already occurred since the contrast agent is already present. It hence is unclear what kind of flow condition, at what kind of temporal condition, the claimed processor attempts to predict.
Claim 4 recites “the medical quantity of interest based on the spectral input imagery” that lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 4 depends on claims 2 and 3, and claim 2 recites “a medical quantity of interest based on the spectral input imagery and the output data”.
Claim 5 recites in line 2 “the medical quantity of interest” that lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 12 and 16, at the end of the claims: “the predicted flow increase or decrease” lacks proper antecedent basis. Note that in two lines above, the “increase or decrease in flow” is estimated. To estimate and to predict have distinct scopes.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-10, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grass et al., US 2015/0297161 A1, hereinafter Grass, in view of Oh et al., US 2024/0303815 A1, hereinafter Oh.
Claims 1, 12 and 16. Grass teaches in FIGS.1-2 a system (10, a computed tomographic (CT) system), method ([0059]: FIG.2 shows a flow chart of a method according to the present invention) and non-transitory computer readable medium comprising executable instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method for medical image processing ([0059]: a method according to the present invention, particularly illustrating in FIG.2 steps carried out by the processing unit 36 for determining the blood flow through coronary arteries), the system and method comprising the components and the steps of:
a memory that stores a plurality of instructions ([0081]: a computer program may be stored/distributed on a suitable non-transitory medium, such as an optical storage medium or a solid-state medium suppled together with or as part of other hardware); and
a processor (36) coupled to the memory and configured to execute the plurality of instructions to ([0058]: for processing the obtained 3D image data sets acquired by the acquisition unit a processing unit 36 is provided; and [0059]: a method according to the present invention, particularly illustrating in FIG.2 steps carried out by the processing unit 36):
receive input data including spectral input imagery ([0060]: the method carried out by the processing nuit 36 receives as input a dual-energy or spectral 3D data set obtained after administration of a marker)
of at least a part of a vascular system of a patient ([0067]: the required information can be obtained from said 3D image data sets by use of an image segmentation, e.g., of the vessel tree),
the spectral input imagery based on data reconstructable from projection data ([0055]: sets of such measuring values will also be referred to as projection data sets…Projection data sets obtained from a number of different projection angles together form a 3D image data set, which can be used to reconstruct one or more images of the object)
acquired by a spectral imaging apparatus of the tomographic type ([0068]: said 3D data set of the heart is acquired by use of a dual-energy or spectral CT scanner. This enables the derive a 3D data set showing different materials from the same measurement data), with presence of contrast agent in the part of the vascular system ([0023]: the administered marker, which is e.g., administered by injection, is preferably a contrast agent…iodine-based or gadolinium-based contrast agents are used) – to administer by injection is to deliver through the vascular system;
predict, based on the spectral input imagery, an increase or decrease in flow ([0069]: in step S9 the total volume of blood that flows into the aorta is determined by subtracting the total volume of blood that flows into all coronary arteries from the total volume of the blood ejected by the heart during one cardiac cycle) – the result of the subtraction, whether it is positive (flow into higher than ejecting out) or negative (flow into lower than ejecting out), predicts an increase or decrease in flow
caused by the presence of contrast agent ([0023]: the administered marker, which is preferably a contrast agent…iodine-based or gadolinium-based contrast agents are used; and [0033]: the volume of blood that flows into the respective muscle segments is determined from contrast agent uptake by the respective muscle segments in response to the administration of a contract agent; and [0074]: the contrast bolus arrival can be used to measure the blood volume over time entering the aorta); and
provide output data indicative of the predicted flow increase or decrease ([0018]: an output unit for outputting the determined total volume of blood that flows into a coronary artery of interest).
In regard to the claimed feature of “predict, based on the spectral input imagery, an increase or decrease in flow caused by the presence of contrast agent, and provide output data indicative of the predicted flow increase or decrease”, if Grass is considered not providing sufficient teaching, in an analogous CT angiograph-based blood flow monitoring field of endeavor, Oh teaches such a feature in [0018]: a computing device for performing a method for predicting a state of an object based on dynamic image data may include a display…The at least one processor may obtain a plurality of pieces of image data for training, may extract a plurality of pieces of dynamic image data for training from the plurality of pieces of image data for training, the plurality of pieces of dynamic image data for training including a playback interval image from a first time when a blood flow influence starts to decrease to a predetermined reference time point, after a time point when a drug is injected into a learning object included in each of the plurality of pieces of image data for training,…and may predict the blood flow image information an the disease specific information corresponding to a diagnosis object using dynamic image data for diagnosis and the first training data; [0036]: the “drug” may correspond to a contrast agent used for MRI or CT; and [0057]: the display 120 may output the above-mentioned various image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the device, method and program of Grass employ such features associated with “predict, based on the spectral input imagery, an increase or decrease in flow caused by the presence of contrast agent, and provide output data indicative of the predicted flow increase or decrease” as taught in Oh for the advantage of “predicting a state of an object based on dynamic image data to perform learning based on dynamic image data captured at a time point when both of blood flow image information are included to predict early dynamic image data and delay image data corresponding to the object, as suggested in Oh, [0006].
Claims 2 and 5. Grass further teaches
measure a medical quantity of interest based on the spectral input imagery and the output data; and the medical quantity of interest includes a hemodynamic quantity comprising at least one of: a perfusion score, fractional flow reserve, instantaneous flow ratio, coronary flow reserve, index of microvascular resistance, and transluminal attenuation gradient ([0075]: the volume over time entering the aorta is preferably translated in a volume per unit time entering each coronary artery selected for virtual FFR calculation; [0077]: a plurality of 3D marker data sets…enables performing a fractional flow reserve aet a plurality of consecutive points in time).
Claim 3. Grass further teaches
combine information from the spectral input imagery with information based on the output data ([0060]: the method carried out by the processing unit 36 receives as input a dual-energy or spectral 3D data set obtained after administration of a marker (Step S0); and [0069]: in step S9 the total volume of blood that flows into the aorta is determined by subtracting the total volume of blood that flows into all coronary arteries from the total volume of blood ejected by the heart during one cardiac cycle).
Oh also teaches the same feature in [0018]: a computing device for performing a method for predicting a state of an object based on dynamic image data may include a display.
Since the blood flow status (i.e., the “information based on the output data”) is obtained from analyzing the information from the spectral 3D data set (i.e., the “information from the spectral input imagery” as claimed), it is considered that the information from the spectral input imagery and the information based on the output data are combined (i.e., they are correlated).
Claim 4. Grass further teaches
combining the information includes correcting or normalizing, based on the output data, an initial measurement of the medical quantity of interest based on the spectral input imagery ([0066]: In step S6 the total volume of blood that flows into a coronary artery of interest is determined by summing the volume of blood flowing into all myocardial muscle segments supplied by said coronary artery. For this purpose, the cross sections and/or resistance of coronary arteries is preferably used in addition (for example by application of scaling laws as e.g. described in Huo Y. et al., published online) to increase the accuracy of this determination) – applying the scaling law is considered the “correcting or normalizing” as claimed.
Claim 6. Oh further teaches
a renderer configured to provide a sensory indication based on the output data for consumption by a user, wherein the renderer includes a visualizer configured to cause displaying on a display device of the output data, and/or a transducer configured to generate an alert signal in relation to the output data ([0057]: the display 120 may output the above-mentioned various image data).
Claim 7. Grass further teaches
a control interface configured to issue a control signal based on the output data to control medical equipment ([0053]: the gantry is driven at a preferably constant, but adjustable speed by a motor 16 that is controlled by a control unit 32).
In regard to the limitation of “to issue a control signal based on the output data to control medical equipment”, it is considered an intended use of the control signal being issued. Since the medical equipment is not part of the claimed system, such a limitation does not further limit the structure of the claimed system. As Grass teaches that the operation of the CT scanner is controlled, it is considered reading on the above clime limitation. For the above consideration, see MPEP § 2114.II: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim 8. In regard to the claimed limitations of “the increase or decrease in flow is caused by an autoregulation response of the vascular system due to the presence of contrast agent”, autoregulation is an intrinsic ability of a vascular system to maintain a relatively constant blood flow when changes of the blood pressure occur. For example, when the contrast agent is injected into the blood vessel, it increases the blood pressure, or more specifically introduces local blood pressure spikes that leads to a flow rate change and triggers the autoregulation mechanism to respond in order to maintain a constant flow.
This limitation is considered an intrinsic properly of the vascular system and does not further limit the structure of the claimed system, hence merely an intended use of the claimed system. For the above consideration, see MPEP § 2114.II: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim 9. Oh further teaches
predicting the increase or decrease in flow caused by the presence of contrast agent is based on a trained machine learning model ([0072]: the image prediction model for diagnosis may be constructed as a deep neural network (DNN). In other words, the image prediction model for diagnosis may apply a deep learning algorithm to learn dynamic image data for one or more patients).
Claim 10. Both Grass and Oh teaches that
the spectral imaging apparatus is configured for computed tomography angiography.
As indicated above in the rejection to claim 1, both Grass and Oh teaches a CT scan with an injection of a contrast agent for monitoring the vasculature system, which is a CT angiography.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huo Y. et al., A validated predictive model of coronary fractional flow reserve, J. R. Soc. Interface.2012, 9(71):1325-1338. This reference discloses a scaling law used for processing coronary FFR data with a validated predictive model.
Rachid Fahmi et al., "Quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging in a porcine ischemia model using a prototype spectral detector CT system", PHYSICS IN MEDICINE ANO BIOLOGY, INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING, BRISTOL GB, vol. 61, no. 6, 4 March 2016 (2016-03-04), pages 2407-2431. This reference disclose using a tomographic type of imaging system to acquire and analyze imaging data for determining blood flow information.
Pinchas et al., EP 3649955 A1. This reference discloses a computer implemented system for supporting an imaging operation. The system comprises input interfaces for receiving input data including an input image. The system is a CT angiography system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI-SHAN YANG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm PST.
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, Pascal M Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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.
/YI-SHAN YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
