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 § 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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 10, 12, 14, 18, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The claim(s) recite(s) a method comprising: receiving imaging information of a brain of the at least one patient; determining a NM concentration of the at least one patient based on the imaging information; determining the dopamine function based on the NM concentration; configured to determine information correlating with a brain disorder of the at least one patient based on the dopamine function; configured to determine further information correlating with a severity of the brain disorder based on the dopamine function; and to determine a MRI volume placement in the imaging information. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory). Examiner construes the claim language that is possible to be performed by a human with a tool without machine learning aid. For example, a physician analyzes a patient’s brain in an image. That is, Applicant fails to specifically disclose whether his machine analyzes complex medical imaging data to perform voxelwise method.
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, 10, 12, 14, 18, and 35 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Claims 1, 10, 12, and 14 are directed to a non-transitory computer-accessible medium; claim 18 is directed to a method; and claim 35 is directed to a system.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes. The claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e., abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The non-transitory computer-accessible medium in claims 1, 10, 12, and 14, the method in claim 18, and a system in claim 32 comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method), and therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 1, 18, and 35, the claimed language recites the steps (functions) of:
receiving imaging information of a brain of the at least one patient; (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind: e.g., a physician receives a patient’s image);
determining a Neuromelanin (NM) concentration of the at least one patient based on the imaging information; and (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind: e.g., the physician analyzes a brain part to determine a NM concentration with a tool, such as a marker);
determining the dopamine function based on the NM concentration (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind: e.g., after analyzing the image, the physician concludes which part in the brain has any disorders in terms of the dopamine function).
Regarding claim 10, the claimed language recites the steps (functions) of:
to determine information correlating with a brain disorder correlating with a brain disorder of the at least one patient based on the dopamine function (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind: e.g., after analyzing the image, the physician concludes which part in the brain has any disorders in terms of the dopamine function).
Regarding claim 12, the claimed language recites the steps (functions) of:
to determine further information correlating with a severity of the brain disorder based on the dopamine function (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind: e.g., after analyzing the image, the physician concludes which part in the brain has any disorders in terms of the dopamine function).
Regarding claim 14, the claimed language recites the steps (functions) of:
to determine an MRI volume placement in the imaging information (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind: e.g., the physician analyzes a brain part to determine a NM concentration with a tool, such as a marker).
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person could mentally analyze an image and determine a fill level, either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a device/in a device (e.g., processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1, 10, 12, 14, 18, and 35 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1, 10, 12, 14, 18, and 35 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional.
Regarding claims 1, 10, 12, 14, 18, and 35, the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s), “receiving imaging information of a brain of the at least one patient; determining a Neuromelanin (NM) concentration of the at least one patient based on the imaging information; determining the dopamine function based on the NM concentration; determine information correlating with a brain disorder correlating with a brain disorder of the at least one patient based on the dopamine function; determine further information correlating with a severity of the brain disorder based on the dopamine function; and determine an MRI volume placement in the imaging information” do not recite any of the exemplary considerations discussed above that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Thus, since claims 1, 10, 12, 14, 18, and 35 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1, 10, 12, 14, 18, and 35 are not eligible subject matter under the 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–2, 6–12, 14, 18 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huddleston et al. (U.S. 9,600,881 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Huddleston discloses a non-transitory computer-accessible medium having stored thereon computer-executable for determining a dopamine function of at least one patient, wherein, when a computer arrangement executes the instructions, the computer arrangement is configured to perform procedures comprising: (Fig. 7, a memory 724)
receiving imaging information of a brain of the at least one patient; (Per Fig. 1, Huddleston discloses a method where image data of a brain is processed. Huddleston col. 8 lines 45–52. [t]he image data may be MR image data of a brain of a subject.)
determining a Neuromelanin (NM) concentration (determining a NM concentration construed as an amount of NM) of the at least one patient based on the imaging information; and (Per Fig. 5, Huddleston discloses a method of how much the amount of NM is present in a brain region. Id. col. 12 lines 24–37. [t]he CNR (e.g., MEAN) and number of voxel may substantially correspond to the amount of neuromelanin present and the number of neurons that contain neuromelanin.)
determining the dopamine function (determining the dopamine function construed as region of interest of a treatment site) based on the NM concentration. (Per Fig. 2 at step 210, Huddleston discloses brain regions of interest of the treatment site based the effects of the NM pigment. Id. col. 9 lines 5–13. [t]he pre-pulse signal may be specific to the MTC effects of the neuromelanin pigment and/or region(s) of interest of the treatment site, for example, the brain stem of a brain of the subject.)
Regarding claim 18, Huddleston discloses a method for determining a dopamine function of at least one patient, comprising:
receiving imaging information of a brain of the at least one patient; (Per Fig. 1, Huddleston discloses a method where image data of a brain is processed. Huddleston col. 8 lines 45–52. [t]he image data may be MR image data of a brain of a subject.)
determining a Neuromelanin (NM) concentration of the at least one patient based on the imaging information; and (Per Fig. 5, Huddleston discloses a method of how much the amount of NM is present in a brain region. Id. col. 12 lines 24–37. [t]he CNR (e.g., MEAN) and number of voxel may substantially correspond to the amount of neuromelanin present and the number of neurons that contain neuromelanin.)
determining the dopamine function based on the NM concentration. (Per Fig. 2 at step 210, Huddleston discloses brain regions of interest of the treatment site based the effects of the NM pigment. Id. col. 9 lines 5–13. [t]he pre-pulse signal may be specific to the MTC effects of the neuromelanin pigment and/or region(s) of interest of the treatment site, for example, the brain stem of a brain of the subject.)
Regarding claim 35, Huddleston discloses a system for determining a dopamine function of at least one patient, comprising: a computer hardware arrangement configured to: (Fig. 7, a CPU 722)
receive imaging information of a brain of the at least one patient; (Per Fig. 1, Huddleston discloses a method where image data of a brain is processed. Huddleston col. 8 lines 45–52. [t]he image data may be MR image data of a brain of a subject.)
determine a Neuromelanin (NM) concentration of the at least one patient based on the imaging information; and (Per Fig. 5, Huddleston discloses a method of how much the amount of NM is present in a brain region. Id. col. 12 lines 24–37. [t]he CNR (e.g., MEAN) and number of voxel may substantially correspond to the amount of neuromelanin present and the number of neurons that contain neuromelanin.)
determine the dopamine function based on the NM concentration. (Per Fig. 2 at step 210, Huddleston discloses brain regions of interest of the treatment site based the effects of the NM pigment. Id. col. 9 lines 5–13. [t]he pre-pulse signal may be specific to the MTC effects of the neuromelanin pigment and/or region(s) of interest of the treatment site, for example, the brain stem of a brain of the subject.)
Regarding claim 2, Huddleston discloses the computer-accessible medium, wherein the computer arrangement is configured to determine the NM concentrations using a voxel-wise analysis procedure. (Per Fig. 5, Huddleston discloses a number of voxels to determine quantitative information of a region in a brain. Huddleston col. 12 lines 24–37. Quantitative information may include but is not limited to volume information, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) information, and/or number of voxels, as well as other types of quantitative information.)
Regarding claim 6, Huddleston discloses the computer-accessible medium, wherein the imaging information is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) information. (Per Fig. 2, Huddleston discloses a method of MRI system. Huddleston col. 8 line 62 – col. 9 line 4. [t]he method 200 may be for an execution on a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system comprising a magnet system and a controller for controlling the magnet system.)
Regarding claim 7, Huddleston discloses the computer-accessible medium, wherein the computer arrangement is further configured to determine a variance in the NM concentration using a NM-MRI contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). (Per Fig. 5 step at 520, Huddleston discloses CNR information by calculating a mean in a region. Huddleston col. 14 lines 46–59. [t]he step 520 may include determining contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) information incorporating both detected area and intensity values within the area)
Regarding claim 8, it has been rejected in the same manner as claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Huddleston discloses the computer-accessible medium, wherein the computer arrangement is configured to determine the NM-MRI CNR as a relative change in a NM-MRI signal intensity from a reference region of white matter tracts in the brain of the at least one patient. (Per Fig. 9 at step 920, Huddleston discloses signal intensity in the region. Huddleston col. 13 lines 56–63. [t]he step 920 may include determining the Mean (I.sub.mean) and, standard deviation (I.sub.sd) of signal intensity for the target ROIs.)
Regarding claim 10, Huddleston discloses the computer-accessible medium, wherein the computer arrangement is further configured to determine information correlating with a brain disorder of the at least one patient based on the dopamine function. (Per Fig. 2 at step 210, Huddleston discloses brain regions of interest of the treatment site based the effects of the NM pigment. Huddleston col. 9 lines 5–13. [t]he pre-pulse signal may be specific to the MTC effects of the neuromelanin pigment and/or region(s) of interest of the treatment site, for example, the brain stem of a brain of the subject.)
Regarding claim 11, Huddleston discloses the computer-accessible medium, wherein the brain disorder includes at least of (i) schizophrenia, (ii) bipolar disorder, or (iii) Parkinson’s disease. (Per Fig. 1 at step 140, Huddleston analyzes a progression of a disease, such as Parkinson’s disease. Huddleston col. 15 lines 4–20. The disease state may include but is not limited to Parkinson's disease, progressive supranuclear palsy, Pick's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and Down's syndrome, as well as psychiatric disorders.)
Regarding claim 12, it has been rejected in the same manner as claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, it has been rejected in the same manner as claim 14.
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.
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 3–5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Huddleston in view of Raj (U.S. 9,563,950 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Huddleston fails to specifically disclose the computer-readable medium, wherein the computer arrangement is configured to use the voxel-wise analysis procedure to determine at least one topographical pattern within a substantia nigra (SN) of the brain of the at least one patient.
In related art, Raj discloses the computer-readable medium, wherein the computer arrangement is configured to use the voxel-wise analysis procedure to determine at least one topographical pattern within a substantia nigra (SN) of the brain of the at least one patient. (Per Fig. 1, Raj trains his model where topographic distribution model is processed to analyze a medical image. Raj col. 9 line 36 – col. 10 line 24. The resulting output vector from the application of the diffusion kernel encapsulates future predictions regarding the subject's future disease states and their topographic distribution on the brain.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Raj into the teachings of Huddleston to predict future states of neurodegeneration and spatial patterns in the brain with dimensionality reduction, differential diagnosis and prediction of future atrophy. Id. col. 2 lines 7–19.
Regarding claim 4, Huddleston as modified by Raj, discloses the computer-accessible medium, wherein the at least one topographical pattern includes at least one pattern of cell loss in the SN. (Raj discloses a disease state—i.e., a cell loss—in the brain. Raj col. 11 lines 48–54. [t]o create the initial disease state, grey matter brain regions were parcellated from all subjects' T1-MRI scans using an atlas-based parcellation scheme, IBASPM) to extract 116 regions of interest (ROIs),)
Regarding claim 5, it has been rejected in the same manner as claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, Huddleston fails to specifically disclose the computer-accessible medium, wherein the imaging information includes (i) at least one sagittal 3D T1W image, (ii) at least coronal 3D T1w image, and (iii) at least one axial 3D T1w image.
In related art, Raj discloses the computer-accessible medium, wherein the imaging information includes (i) at least one sagittal 3D T1W image, (ii) at least coronal 3D T1w image, and (iii) at least one axial 3D T1w image. (Raj discloses a model where axial T1 weighed scanning is performed. Raj col. 35 line 52 – col. 36 line 12. Axial T1 weighted FSPGR scans (TE=1.5 ms, TR=6.3 ms, TI=400 ms, 15° flip angle) with 230×230×156 isotropic 1 mm voxels were acquired)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Raj into the teachings of Huddleston to predict future states of neurodegeneration and spatial patterns in the brain with dimensionality reduction, differential diagnosis and prediction of future atrophy. Id. col. 2 lines 7–19.
Claims 15–17, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Huddleston in view of Shiodera et al. (U.S. 9,693,706 B2).
Regarding claim 15, Huddleston fails to specifically disclose the computer-accessible medium, wherein the computer arrangement is configured to determine the MRI volume placement by: a) identifying a sagittal image showing a largest separation between a midbrain of the at least one patient and a thalamus of the at least one patient; and b) determining a coronal image that has a coronal plane in the sagittal image that identifies a most anterior aspect of the midbrain.
In related art, Shiodera discloses the computer-accessible medium, wherein the computer arrangement is configured to determine the MRI volume placement by:
a) identifying a sagittal image showing a largest separation between a midbrain of the at least one patient and a thalamus of the at least one patient; and (Per Fig. 6, Shiodera discloses a sagittal image where a brain is separated into a left section and a right section. Shiodera col. 8 line 58 – col. 9 line 3. FIG. 6 illustrates an image (hereinafter, a “sagittal image”, as appropriate) taken on a plane (referred to as a “sagittal cross section” or a “sagittal plane”) that divides the brain into a left section and a right section.)
b) determining a coronal image that has a coronal plane in the sagittal image that identifies a most anterior aspect of the midbrain. (Per Fig. 16, Shiodera discloses a coronal plane to characterize anatomical positions in the brain. Id. col. 20 lines 53–62. FIG. 16 illustrates a plane (referred to as a “coronal cross section” or a “coronal plane”) that is parallel to both the forehead and the body axis of the subject.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Shiodera into the teachings of Huddleston to analyze a cross-sectional image in the direction of a brain movement. Id. col. 20 line 62 – col. 21 line 12.
Regarding claim 16, Huddleston as modified by Shiodera, discloses the computer-accessible medium, wherein the computer arrangement is configured to determine the MRI volume placement by:
a) determining an axial plane in the coronal image that identifies an inferior aspect of a third ventricle of the brain of the at least one patient; and (Per Fig. 7, Shiodera discloses a third ventricle 603. Shiodera col. 9 lines 8–36. [t]he label region 701 is set in the third ventricle 603, which is positioned at a starting point from which the CSF flows out within the imaging region.)
b) setting a superior boundary of the NM-MRI volume to be within a particular distance superior to the axial plane. (Per Fig. 18A, Shiodera discloses a boundary position between a label region 1800 and a morphological region 1802. Id. col. 21 line 55 – col. 22 line 19.)
Regarding claim 17, Huddleston as modified by Shiodera, discloses the computer-accessible medium, wherein the particular distance is about 3mm. (Per Fig. 11, Shiodera discloses a distance of brain area, such as a position 254 around 29mm in the image. Shiodera col. 13 lines 35–51. [t]he display controlling unit 126e displays a bar 1102 so as to visualize the distance from the reference position to the CSF position 254.)
Regarding claim 32, it has been rejected in the same manner as claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sapiro et al. (U.S. 9,412,076 B2) discloses a volumetric segmentation for brain region analysis.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENEDICT LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-0390. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-16:00 (EST).
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, Stephen R. Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BENEDICT E LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665