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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the another respective correspondence rule " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of art evaluation, the Examiner assumes claim 8 to depend on claim 4.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the another respective correspondence rule " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of art evaluation, the Examiner assumes claim 8 to depend on claim 18.
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, 10-12, 15-19, 22, and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tayler (US 2015/0088015 A1) in view of Groth et al. (US 2016/0379372 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Taylor discloses a method for generating a 3D parametric mesh of an anatomical structure for storing multi-domain data therein, the method being executed by at least one processor (Paragraph 0109, processor), the method comprising: receiving a plurality of anatomical segments of at least a portion of an anatomical structure in a body of a given patient having been obtained from segmentation of a set of images having been acquired by a medical imaging apparatus, the set of images comprising at least one image of at least the portion of the anatomical structure in the body of the given patient; (Paragraphs 0124 and 0133, imaging of a patient’s anatomy including aorta and myocardium that can be modeled as a solid model that can be segmented, paragraphs 0157 and 0168) receiving a 3D mesh for representing the anatomical structure, the 3D mesh comprising: (Paragraph 0112, volumetric mesh of the patient’s anatomy from a three-dimensional model) determining at least one respective set of nodes in the 3D mesh corresponding to at least one respective anatomical segment of the plurality of anatomical segments to obtain a respective correspondence rule therebetween; (Paragraph 0185, the mesh includes a plurality of nodes having information corresponding to information of the segments, paragraph 0031) and encoding, using the correspondence rule, the at least one respective set of nodes of the 3D mesh with a respective set of features from the at least one respective anatomical segment to obtain a 3D parametric mesh, each node of the at least one respective set of nodes in the 3D parametric mesh being associated with a respective plurality of feature channels comprising the respective set of features (Paragraphs 0195-0197, computational analysis to obtain a revised mesh with nodes having various blood flow characteristics or parameters).
Taylor does not clearly disclose a plurality of concentric 3D mesh layers, each one of the plurality of concentric 3D mesh layers comprising a same predetermined number of nodes. Groth discloses concentric mesh layers of anatomy each having the same number of nodes (Figure 4 and paragraphs 0071-0073). Groth’s concentric mesh layers of anatomy each having the same number of nodes would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the 3D mesh of a patient’s anatomy having nodes with information of Taylor and the results would have been predictable in a 3D mesh of a patient’s anatomy having concentric mesh layers with nodes having information. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Groth discloses wherein at least a subset of nodes of the at least one set of nodes are located on different concentric 3D mesh layers (Figure 4, nodes on different layers).
Regarding claim 3, Taylor discloses wherein said encoding using the correspondence rule, the at least one set of nodes of the 3D mesh with the respective set of features from the at least one respective anatomical segment to obtain the 3D parametric mesh comprises: determining, using the respective correspondence rule, a respective set of features from biomarkers in the at least one respective anatomical segment; (Paragraph 0195, various blood flow characteristics or parameters) and assigning, to each of the at least one respective set of nodes, the respective set of features from the at least one respective anatomical segment (Paragraph 0195, the blood flow parameters are included in the nodes).
Regarding claim 4, Taylor in view of Groth discloses receiving a domain representation comprising respective biomarkers related to the anatomical structure in the body of the given patient; (Taylor, paragraph 0159, three-dimensional solid model for the patient’s anatomy with blood flow characteristics) determining at least one other respective set of nodes in the 3D parametric mesh corresponding to at least one other region in the domain representation to obtain another respective correspondence rule, at least a subset of the other respective second set of nodes being located on different concentric 3D mesh layers; (Taylor, paragraph 0195 and Groth, figure 4, the mesh can represent the solid model where the mesh can have different layers having nodes with blood flow characteristics or parameters for associated segments of the patient’s anatomy) and encoding, using the other respective correspondence rule, the at least one other respective set of nodes in the 3D parametric mesh with another set of features based on the respective biomarkers, each node of the at least one other respective set of nodes in the 3D parametric mesh being associated with a respective plurality of feature channels comprising the other set of features (Taylor, paragraph 0195, various blood flow characteristics or parameters are part of the nodes).
Regarding claim 5, Taylor discloses wherein each respective node is further associated with at least one time frame for representing the 3D parametric mesh in time (Paragraph 0027, blood flow characteristics over time).
Regarding claim 8, Taylor discloses wherein the domain representation comprises another mesh different from the 3D parametric mesh, and wherein the another respective correspondence rule comprises determining a mapping between nodes in the another mesh and nodes in the 3D parametric mesh (Paragraph 0117, other meshes can be produced for the anatomy where the other meshes can be revised to include blood flow characteristics for any segment of the anatomy that shares nodes).
Regarding claim 10, Taylor discloses wherein the domain representation comprises a structural mechanics representation; (Paragraph 0157, the solid model is a geometric model) and wherein the respective biomarkers comprise structural mechanics biomarkers, the structural mechanics biomarkers comprising at least one of: pressure values, strain values, and deformation values (Paragraph 0159, pressure).
Regarding claim 11, Taylor discloses wherein the domain representation comprises a fluid dynamics representation; (Paragraph 0159, solid model has blood flow characteristics) and wherein the respective biomarkers comprise at least one of: blood flow values and shear stress values (Paragraph 0159, blood flow characteristics such as velocity and flow rate).
Regarding claim 12, Taylor discloses wherein the domain representation comprises a descriptive variable representation; (Paragraph 0157, geometric model) and wherein the respective biomarkers comprise at least one of: geometric data values and image data values (Paragraph 0164, geometry of boundaries of the geometric model).
Regarding claim 15, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 1 is applied. Furthermore, Taylor discloses at least one processor; and a non-transitory storage medium operatively connected to the at least one processor, the non-transitory storage medium storing computer-readable instructions (Paragraph 0109, processor for executing instructions stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium).
Regarding claim 16, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 17, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 18, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claim 19, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 22, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 8 is applied.
Regarding claim 24, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 10 is applied.
Regarding claim 25, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 11 is applied.
Regarding claim 26, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 12 is applied.
Claim(s) 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 2015/0088015 A1) in view of Groth et al. (US 2016/0379372 A1) and further in view of Pattenden (US 2010/0251185 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Taylor in view of Groth discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Taylor in view of Groth does not clearly disclose wherein each respective concentric 3D mesh layer is represented as a respective multidimensional array, a location of a given node on the respective 3D mesh layer corresponding to the location of the given node in the respective multidimensional array. Pattenden discloses that a mesh can be represented as a three-dimensional array of nodes where each node has a longitudinal, lateral, and vertical location (Paragraph 0054). Pattenden’s mesh that can be represented as a three-dimensional array of nodes where each node has a longitudinal, lateral, and vertical location would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the nodes of a mesh for patient anatomy of Taylor in view of Groth and the results would have been predictable in representing the nodes of a mesh of patient anatomy as a three-dimensional array of nodes where each node has a longitudinal, lateral, and vertical location. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 6 is applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prokoski (US 2010/0172567 A1) discloses node maps that allow for selection of nodes corresponding to segments in a body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3417. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/PHI HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
