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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on their 1/12/2026 has been entered. Accordingly, claims 1, 8-10, 13-18, and 20-23 remain pending, claims 1 and 20 have been amended, claims 4-7 and 21-25 are canceled, and claims 26-34 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Information Disclosure Statement
it is noted while applicant has filed a new IDS document on 07/23/2025, applicant still has not corrected the missing cited references from the IDS document from 11/21/2022. See as outlined below.
Drawing Objections
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s remarks to the specific drawing objections to FIG. 27, where applicant points to specification amendments to [0359] filed 01/17/2025. Accordingly, this specific objection moot and have been withdrawn.
Regarding applicant’s remarks to the specific drawing objections to FIG. 28, where applicant points to specification amendments to [0319] filed 01/17/2025, where applicant indicated support for in claims 6-7 as filed provide support for this amendment. Accordingly, this specific objection moot and have been withdrawn.
Specification Objections
Applicant's amendments to the specification filed their 1/12/2026 have been fully considered, and while some of the previous objection outlined in the office action mailed 09/12 2025, have been remedied and addressed in the specification amendments filed 01/12/2026, the specification remains objected. See the outlined objection below.
Further, it is noted that any amendment containing subject matter not present in the original disclosure of the parent application 15/678,985 as filed on 08/16/2017, then the subject matter in question will be given the latter priority date when it was first presented. In the instant case, the subject matter of claims 6-7 is given the priority date of 01/25/2022, when the subject matter was first presented.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 regarding the previous rejections under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b), the claim amendments cancelling claims 4-7 and 21-23, render the corresponding rejections for these claims moot. Therefore, these specific rejections of canceled claims 4-7 and 21-23 have been withdrawn.
However, the amendments to claims 1 and 20 do not remedy the outstanding 112(b) rejections for these claims. The corresponding rejections under 112(b) have been updated below to reflect the present claim language. Additionally, the amendments presented in claims 1 and 20 have added additional issues regarding clarity to the claims and subsequently, some of the dependent claims which now present rejections under 112 in life of the new amendments presented to the corresponding independent parent claim. Newly presented claims 26-34 additionally present numerous clarity issues and corresponding rejections under this statute have been issued as outlined below.
Therefore, the claims remain rejected and the rejection has been made final.
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-22, filed 01/12/2026, with respect to claim one have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 103 rejections of pending claims 1, 8-10, 13-18, and 20-23 have been withdrawn. Also see the examiner interview mailed 12/29/2025 documenting the interview conducted on 12/22/2025, providing support in the discussion outlined under boxes labeled “35 USC 112”, “35 USC 103”, and “Proposed Amendment(s)”.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120, and CFR 1.78 as follows:
Applicant is reminded that in order for a patent issuing on the instant application to obtain priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), based on priority date for Application No. PCT/CN2015/073209 (to which the present application claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) or is a reissue application of a patent issued on the related application), a copy of this document is required to be filed. The above PCT application is in a language other than English, it is noted that neither an English-language translation of the prior-filed PCT application nor a statement that the translation is accurate were previously filed in the parent application 15/678,985. Therefore, applicant is required to file a certified copy of such application together with an English translation with an accompanying a statement that the translation is accurate.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/21/2022* fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Please see the attached annotated copy of each of the above IDS which indicate copies of documents which have not been provided with a strike-though line through the document on the corresponding IDS.
*It is noted that while applicant has not provided any of the foreign patent documents nor non-patent literature listed on the IDS as filed for the present application, some of these foreign patent documents were able to be retrieved in the file wrapper for the parent application 15/678,985. However, not all missing documents cited on the presently objected IDS were provided in the parent application. These documents have been indicated as missing on the IDS as outlined above.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: amended paragraph [0112] as filed 01/12/2026 should be amended to recite “The first step includes: extracting a straight line at a preset interval or extracting a straight line passing through a specific target area based on a linear equation on an arbitrary brain sagittal section or coronal section of the 3D volume data; for example, an arbitrary brain sagittal section or coronal section can be a median sagittal section image, and the specific target area can be the region of interest such as the callosum, the cavum septi pellucidi, and the cauda cerebelli”. Appropriate correction is required.
It is also noted throughout the specification, applicant incorrect indefinite article before nouns that begin with a vowel. For example, as noted above, and also in, but not limited thereto, in [0026] applicant has written “FIG. 23 is a schematic diagram of marking a intersection line…” and “a intersection”, should be corrected to “an intersection”.
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 1, 8-10, 13-18, 20, and 26-34 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “extracting from the 3D volume data, by the processor, a plane satisfying a condition that a gray scale value of the plane is greater than a gray scale value of two sides of the plane as a sagittal section image of the head”, “the target transverse section image satisfying a preset condition representing a characteristic of the specified transverse section type of the head”, “a preset range of similarity index(indices), the similarity index(indices) indicating the similarity…or a preset range of a symmetry index(indices), the symmetry index(indices) indicating a similarity of data of two sides of a candidate transverse section image”, “displaying, by the display device, the target transverse section image” in lines 10-13, 26-28, and 29 to 38, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the plane satisfying a condition that a gray scale value of the plane is greater than a gray scale value of two sides of the plane as a sagittal section image of the head is required by the claim as there is no active step that positively recites a step that performs the function of the determination a plane in the 3D volume data that satisfies the condition that a gray scale value of the plane is greater than a gray scale value of two sides of the plane as a sagittal section image of the head. It is also unclear how the “condition” is defined as “that a gray scale value of the plane is greater than a gray scale value of two sides of the plane as a sagittal section image of the head”. It is unclear how and where the singular gray scale value of the plane that is brighter than a second singular value for a plurality, e.g., two, separate sides of the same plane. Review of the specification in [0189] which discloses
“…the median sagittal section image overall has much bigger gray scale value than the peripheral region, in other words, in 3D images of a fetal brain, the median sagittal section image appear as a section of which the gray scale value is obviously bigger than the gray scale value of the region around it, or, the median sagittal section image is much brighter than the peripheral region in 3D images of a 3D fetal brain; or, in a fetal brain, the structures of two sides of the median sagittal section are approximately symmetrical, thus, in 3D images of a fetal brain, the image data of two sides of the median sagittal section image shows approximate symmetry…”.
Accordingly, it is unclear if the extraction step performed by the processor does so by performing a step which determines or evaluates the gray scale values in the 3D images in order to differentiate [median] sagittal section (having the quantitatively largest gray scale value(s) as the plane, in comparison to peripheral regions of the same set of 3D images (regions in the 3D images having quantitative gray scale values that are lower than the quantitative gray scale values found outside of or adjacent to the region of the 3D images containing the [median] sagittal section).
It is also unclear if the target transverse section image recited in the present stands under examination refers to the specified transverse section type of the head as recited earlier in the claim and in additionally how the target transverse section image is determined to functionally “satisfying a preset condition representing a characteristic of the specified transverse section type of the head”. It is also unclear if the preset condition representing a characteristic of the specified transverse section type of the head refers to the condition that a gray scale value of the plane is greater than a gray scale value of the two sides the plane recited earlier in the claim. A review of the specification as filed found the disclosure which describes:
[0181] “the candidated transverse section image corresponding to the similarity index which satisfies the image characteristic is regarded as the transverse section to be detected. Here, the ‘image characteristic conditions’ can be the conditions that represent the similarity between the candidated transverse section image and the template image is most optimal” (emphasis added) and in [0282] that the “symmetry index is mainly used for measuring similarity of data of two sides of candidated section” (emphasis added). Further in [0291], the specification discloses that “[t]he definition of the symmetry index includes but not limited to aforementioned two methods, and also may use other similar definitions, such as the Euclidean Distance of the first region and second region, and the Cosine Similarity Index of the first region and second region, etc.” (emphasis added).
Accordingly, it is unclear if applicant is intending or the terms enclosed in “()”, e.g., “(indices)” which has newly been amended into claim after the preceding term “index” to be deleted or to be interpreted as part of the claim limitation, namely it is unclear if applicant is intending to claim a singular similarity index and a singular symmetry index; alternatively, or if applicant is intending to claim a plurality of similarity indices or a plurality of symmetry indices in the limitation under examination. As noted in Oxford’s Concise Dictionary Mathematics, notes the plural form of it index as being indices. And Cambridge dictionary defines the term index when used as a noun (COMPARISON) to mean “a system of numbers used for comparing values of things that change according to each other or fixed standard”. Accordingly, it is unclear if applicant referring to “a preset range of similarity index(indices)…” is referring to a preset range of a plurality of systems of numbers used for comparing values…, as defined as above as known in the mathematical arts.
It is also unclear if the “data” of the two sides the candidate transverse section image refers to the 3D volume data recited earlier in the claim. And if the “two sides of the candidate transverse section image” are meant to refer to the two sides of the plane, recited earlier in the claim.
Claims 8, 13, 20, 26-34 are also rejected for reciting the same and/or similar limitations outlined above.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
Claim 9 recites, “wherein the indicator is an intersection line of the target transverse section image and a reference image” in lines 1-2, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the target transverse section image and the reference target image in the immediate claim is meant to refer to the candidate transverse section image and the preset transverse section template image or the reference target area from the sagittal section image recited in parent claim 1, on which claim 9 is dependent via the chain of dependency through claim 8.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the indicator is displayed on a section schematic” in lines 1, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the section schematic is meant to refer to the sagittal section image for the candidate transverse section images which pass through the reference target area or the preset transverse section template image recited in parent claim 1, on which claim 10 is dependent via the chain of dependency through claim 8.
Claim 13 recites “further comprising: detecting by the processor and object of interest in the target transverse section image… Automatically measuring, by the processor, a parameter of the object of interest…” In lines 1-7, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear the object recited in immediate claim is meant to refer to the region of interest of cavum septi pellucidi, or is meant to refer to the at least one of the cerebellum section, the thalamus section, and the lateral ventricle section, as recited in parent claim 1, on which claim 13 is dependent.
Claims 14-18 are also rejected for reciting the same and/or limitations outlined above.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
Claim 14 recites “dating, by the processor, a region of interest in the target transverse section image…” In lines 3-5 which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the region of interest recited in immediate claim is meant to refer to the region of interest of cavum septi pellucidi in the sagittal section image, of which the reference target area is comprised, as recited in claim 1, on which claim 14 is dependent, via the chain of dependency through claim 13.
Claims 15, 17-18, 29-30, and 34 are also rejected for reciting the same and/or limitations outlined above.
Claim 20 has been amended to recite “extract, from the 3D volume data, a plane satisfying a condition that a gray scale value of the plane is greater than a gray scale value of two sides of the plane as a sagittal section image of the head” in lines 9-11, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the plane satisfying a condition that a gray scale value of the plane is greater than a gray scale value of two sides of the plane as a sagittal section image of the head is required by the claim as there is no active step that positively recites a step that performs the function of the determination a plane in the 3D volume data that satisfies the condition that a gray scale value of the plane is greater than a gray scale value of two sides of the plane as a sagittal section image of the head. It appears, though it is unclear, that the limitation is intended use and therefore, is not given patentable weight.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
Claim 26 recites “obtaining the preset transverse section template image”, “calculating a similarity index between each of the candidate transverse section images of the candidate image set and the preset transverse section image template to obtain a set of similarity indexes”, “selecting a similarity index which satisfies the range of the similarity index from the set of similarity indexes”, obtaining a candidate transverse section image corresponding to the selected similarity index as the target transverse section image” in lines 6-13, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how and from what structure the preset transverse section template image is functionally “obtained”.
It is also unclear if the similarity index recited as being calculated in the present claim is meant to refer to the similarity index(indices) recited in parent claim 1, on which claim 26 is dependent. It is additionally unclear if the similarity index recited as being “selected” in the present claim is meant to refer to the similarity index(indices) recited in parent claim 1, on which claim 26 is dependent, and/or if it is meant to refer to the similarity index that is calculated, as recited earlier in the present claim 26. Further still, it the set of similarity indexes is meant to refer to the similarity index(indices) recited in parent claim 1, on which claim 26 is dependent. It is unclear when reciting “similarity indexes” if applicant means to refer to a plurality or more than one numerical or mathematical indices, as defined in the mathematical arts (see as defined in the above rejection of claim 1) or if applicant is mean to refer to a plurality of more than one literary indexes.
Claims 27-34 are also rejected for reciting the same and/or limitations outlined above.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
Claim 27 recites “calculating a symmetry index between each of the candidate transverse section images of the candidate image set to obtain a set of symmetry indexes, the symmetry index indicating a similarity of data of two sides of the respected candidate transverse section image”, “selecting a symmetry index which satisfies the range of the symmetry index from the set of symmetry indexes”, “obtaining a candidate transverse section image corresponding to the selected symmetry index as the target transverse section image” in lines 6-13, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the symmetry index recited as being calculated in the present claim is meant to refer to the similarity index(indices) recited in parent claim 1, on which claim 27 is dependent. It is additionally unclear if the symmetry index recited as being “selected” in the present claim is meant to refer to the similarity index(indices) recited in parent claim 1, on which claim 27 is dependent, and/or if it is meant to refer to the similarity index that is calculated, as recited earlier in the present claim 27. Further still, it the set of symmetry indexes is meant to refer to the similarity index(indices) recited in parent claim 1, on which claim 27 is dependent. It is unclear when reciting “symmetry indexes”, if applicant means to refer to a plurality or more than one numerical or mathematical indices, as defined in the mathematical arts (see as defined in the above rejection of claim 1) or if applicant is mean to refer to a plurality of more than one literary indexes.
Claims 27-34 are also rejected for reciting the same and/or limitations outlined above.
Claim 28 recites “…extracting an image characteristic from the preset transverse section template image to obtain a first characteristic quantity…”, “calculating a likelihood between each second characteristic quantity of the set of second characteristic quantities and the first characteristic quantity to obtain a set of similarity indexes…” In lines 4-6 and 9-17, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the image characteristic recited in the immediate claim is meant to refer to the characteristic of the specified transverse section type image of the head represented by the preset condition which satisfies the target transverse section image recited in parent claim 26, on which claim 28 depends.
Claim 33 is also rejected for reciting the same and/or limitations outlined above.
Claim 29 recites “selecting at least one pair of first region and second region at two sides of a candidate transverse section image in the 3D volume data the first region and the corresponding second region are symmetrical about the candidate transverse section image”, calculating a symmetry index symmetry index corresponding to the at least one pair of first region and second region…” in lines 4-13, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how is able to be obtained from a singular [at least one] symmetry indexes, when the term “symmetry indexes” is recited in the plural form. It is also unclear by the use of word “indexes” if applicant is referring to a plurality of mathematical systems or a plurality of literary systems, as outlined in the above rejection of claim 1. See above as described in the rejection of claim 1. It is also unclear if the at least one pair of first region and second region at two sides of the candidate transverse section image in the 3D volume is meant to refer to the region of interest of cavum septi pellucidi in the sagittal section image, recited in claim 1 on which claim 29 is dependent via the chain of dependency through claim 27. It is likewise unclear if the two sides of a candidate transverse section image in the 3D volume data the first region are meant to refer to the two sides of a candidate transverse section image, recited in claim 1 on which claim 29 is dependent via the chain of dependency through claim 27.
It is unclear to what “the corresponding second region” refers as the claim does not previously recite “a corresponding second region”. Therefore, the limitation presents lack of the season basis for the term in the claim.
It is unclear how a singular at least one symmetry index is obtained, which is recited as to correspond to the at least one pair of the person second region, when the limitation previously recites the calculating of a symmetry index for each of the at least one pair of the first region and the second region, meaning, there would be a plurality of release to symmetry index ease corresponding to each of the at least one pair of the first region and a second region at two sides of the candidate transverse section image in the 3D volume data.
It is unclear what functional meaning applicant meant to impart by reciting that obtaining the symmetry index of the candidate transverse section image as being corny to the at least one symmetry index, as it appears although, it is unclear, if the at least one symmetry index is meant to be inclusive of the symmetry index.
Claim 34 it is also rejected for reciting the same and/or limitations outlined above.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
Claim 30 recites “obtaining a mean value of the at least one symmetry indexes to be the symmetry index of the candidate transverse section image”, “obtaining a weighted average of at least one symmetry indexes to be the symmetry index of the candidate transverse section image, Wayne coefficients being determines according to positions of the at least one pair of first and second region” in lines 4-9, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a mean value, e.g., an average value, is determined from a singular at least one symmetry indexes is functionally imparted “to be” the symmetry index of the candidate transverse section image. It is also unclear how obtain the singular weighted average of the at least one symmetry indexes is functionally “to be” the symmetry index of the candidate transverse section image. It is also unclear if this step of the Wayne coefficients being determined according to positions of the at least one pair of first and second region is performed or required by the claim, as there is no step recited in the claim that which actively recites the determination of the weighing coefficients as being performed. It is unclear if the at least one pair of first and second region recited in the present claim, are meant to refer to the first region and the second region recited in parent claim 29, on which claim 30 is dependent.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY SHAFQAT whose telephone number is (571)272-4054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-5:30PM MST.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571) 270-1790. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798