Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/4/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 4/10/2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because it did not include a fee as set forth in § 1.17(p). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/4/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of dependent claims 11 and 18 does not end with a period [.]. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8-27 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.
Regarding independent claims 8, 15, and 22, each discloses to, “build a 3-D vascular tree model of the patient's coronary arteries using a subset of the plurality of 2-D angiographic images.” According to the applicant’s originally filed specification, Par. [0060] discloses, “the adjusting comprises: calculating a 3-D representation of feature positions from the 2-D feature positions of a first subset of the plurality of 2-D angiographic images; adjusting 2-D feature positions in a second subset of the plurality of 2-D angiographic images to more closely match features of the 3-D representation, as if the first 3-D representation were projected into the adjusted imaging planes of the second subset; and iterating over the calculating and the adjusting with changes to the first and second subsets, until a halt condition is met.” No where in this paragraph or anywhere else in the specification discloses that the 3-D vascular tree model is built using a subset of the plurality of 2-D angiographic images. As such, the claims lack the proper support and create new matter.
Claims 9-14, 16-21, and 22-27 are rejected based upon its dependencies of claims 8, 15, and 22, respectfully.
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 2-27 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claim 2, the claim discloses “building a 3-D vascular tree model of the patient's coronary arteries using the registered 2-D angiographic images”, but it is unclear since the claim limitation above the one in concern discloses, “registering at least a first 2-D angiographic image with a second 2-D angiographic image from the plurality of 2-D angiographic images”. Thus, it appears only a first 2-D angiographic image with a second 2-D angiographic image is registered, and not the 2-D angiographic images.
Regarding independent claims 2, 8, 15, and 22, the claims disclose, “adjust(ing) the set of projection parameters for the plurality of 2-D angiographic images to fit a consensus centerline identified in the 3-D representation with centerlines identified in the plurality of 2-D angiographic images”.
According to the applicant’s originally filed specification, Par. [0375] discloses, “in some embodiments of the invention, a subset of images (comprising a plurality) with identified 2-D centerlines is selected for processing. Centerlines are optionally dilated at block 31B, and a centerline projection back into 3-D performed at block 31C, based on the current best-known projection parameters for each image (initially these are, for example, the parameters expected based on the known calibrations of the imaging device). The resulting projected volume is skeletonized, in some embodiments, to form a "consensus centerline" at block 31D. At block 31E, the consensus centerline is projected back into the coordinate systems of 2-D images comprising those which were not used in forming the consensus centerline. At block 31F, an optimization procedure adjusts projection parameters for the 3-D centerline into each 2-D image to fit more closely centerlines found within the image itself. This adjustment is used to adjust the projection parameters associated with each image.”
Thus, it appears each independent claim is trying to say that the consensus centerline was used to “fit”, but instead as seen in the applicant’s originally filed specification, the consensus centerline was formed, and then adjustments were made to fit the 3-D centerline into each 2-D image more closely. As such, the claims are unclear how the consensus centerline can be used to fit when it was actually just formed.
Claims 3-7, 9-14, 16-21, and 22-27 are rejected based upon its dependencies of claims 2, 8, 15, and 22, respectfully.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 4, the claim discloses, “and wherein the first 2-D angiographic image and the second 2-D angiographic image are determined based on the heart synchronization output,” but independent claim 2, which claim 4 depends upon, already discloses that the first and second images are registered based on a heart synchronization. Thus, claim 4 fails to further limit the claim and is rejected as such.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is verbatim to the same limitation disclosed within independent claim 22, which claim 23 depends upon. Thus, claim 23 fails to further limit the claim and is rejected as such.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Examiner’s Comments
The Office has established rejections under 35 USC 112(a), 112(b), and 112(d) with regards to claims 2-27. The scope of claims 2-27 cannot be determined because of the identified issues presented above. The numerous rejections to claims 2-27 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 112(b), and 112(d) render applicant's claims as being incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonably detailed search of the prior art by the examiner. The examiner has attempted to identify all grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 112(b), and 112(d). However, the number of issues with regards to claims 2-27 cannot be ascertained. The examiner suggests that the applicant carefully review the claims in order to fix any and all issues that have and have not been highlighted by this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vincent Rudolph whose telephone number is (571)272-8243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 3:30 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.
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.
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights