Ex Parte Taylor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 1, 2017

14323170 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/323,170 07/03/2014 Charles A. TAYLOR 11541-0026-03000 8692 108449 7590 03/03/2017 Bookoff McAndrews, PLLC 2401 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 450 Washington, DC 20037 EXAMINER JONES, HUGH M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2128 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/03/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): usptomail @bookoffmcandrews.com KRoss@bookoffmcandrews.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHARLES A. TAYLOR, HYUN JIN KIM, SETHURAMAN SANKARAN, MICHIEL SCHAAP, DAVID EBERLE, GIL WOO CHOI, and LEO GRADY Appeal 2016-002915 Application 14/323,170 Technology Center 2100 Before THU A. DANG, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 21—40. No other claims are pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2016-002915 Application 14/323,170 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 21. A computer-implemented method of anatomical modeling, the method comprising: determining, using a processor, a patient-specific anatomic model and a biomechanical model associated with one or more blood vessels of a patient as characterized by an imaging state; determining a state of increased blood flow through the one or more blood vessels of the patient, the state of increased blood flow being different from the imaging state; modifying the biomechanical model based on a geometrical change to the anatomic model induced by the state of increased blood flow; and performing a fluid dynamics simulation based on the modified biomechanical model and the geometrical change to the anatomic model. THE REJECTION Claims 21—40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Taylor (US 2012/0053918 Al; Mar. 1, 2012). ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Taylor discloses modifying a biomechanical model based on ‘“a geometrical change to the anatomic model induced by [a] state of increased blood flow’ that is ‘different from the imaging state,’ as specified by the claim features.” App. Br. 10 (quoting claim 21). Appellants argue “the cited portions of Taylor refer to changes to anatomic model(s) from surgical treatments (e.g., insertion of stents). . ., not geometrical changes induced by the state of 2 Appeal 2016-002915 Application 14/323,170 increased blood flow.” Reply Br. 3 (citing Taylor H 116, 232). Further, Appellants argue that while other examples in Taylor “may teach adjusting a biomechanical model based on a state of increased blood flow, they do not disclose or teach modifying the biomechanical model based on a geometrical change to the anatomic model induced by state of increased blood flow.’ '’ Reply Br. 3 (citing Taylor H 162, 337). We disagree with Appellants. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, the cited portions of Taylor disclose generating a geometric analysis model “for quantifying vessel deformation” (Taylor 1310) at “various physiological states, such as rest, varying levels of exercise or exertion, etc.” (Taylor 1 309). Cf. Spec. 142 (“In one embodiment, step 405 may include determining a deformation that may be computed to update the geometrical model.”). Further, Appellants acknowledge Taylor’s disclosures of determining and/or adjusting boundary conditions of physics-based blood flow models based on physical conditions of the patient teach adjusting a biomechanical model based on a state of increased blood flow. Reply Br. 3 (citing Ans. 7, Taylor H 162, 337). Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Taylor states that such modifications of the boundary conditions can be based on geometrical changes to the three-dimensional model based on the patient’s condition (see Taylor Figs. 9-11, H 156—163). See Taylor 1161 (“FIGS. 9—11 show examples of a calculated FFR (cFFR) model that indicates the change in the ratio of coronary pressure to aortic pressure in the model 320, depending on the physiological condition of the patient (at rest, under maximum hyperemia, or under maximum exercise).”). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Taylor discloses modifying a 3 Appeal 2016-002915 Application 14/323,170 biomechanical model based on a geometrical change to the anatomic model induced by a state of increased blood flow, as claimed. Having considered the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 in light of each of Appellants’ arguments and the evidence of record, we disagree with Appellants and agree with the Examiner. We adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings consistent with the above and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21, as well as the rejections of claims 22-40 for which Appellants rely on the arguments advanced regarding claim 21. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21—40. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 4