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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group III (claims 15-22) in the reply filed on 06/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/03/2026.
Claim Status
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Claims 15-22 are examined on the merits.
Claims 1-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or liking claim.
Claims 23 and 24 are canceled.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign to GR20190100470 filed 10/21/2019. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. A Accordingly, the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 10/21/2019. At this point in examination, all claims have been interpreted as being accorded on this priority date. In future actions, the effective filing date of one or more claims may change, due to amendments to the claims, or further analysis of the disclosure(s) of the priority application(s).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 04/19/2022, 06/02/2022, 03/19/2025, 07/17/2025, and 07/01/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the list of cited references was considered in full by the examiner. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this Office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed 04/19/2022 are accepted.
Specification
The amendments to the specification filed 04/19/2022 are accepted.
Objections
Claims 15-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The recited “… selecting a description of a branch from the plurality and probabilistically generating …” in claim 15, should read “selecting a description of a branch from the plurality of descriptions and probabilistically generating…”. Emphasis added. Appropriate correction is required.
The recited “… generating the collection of model neurites including foreclosing selection …” in claim 16, should read “…generating the collection of model neurites includes foreclosing selection …”. Emphasis added. Appropriate correction is required.
The recited “… selecting a description of a branch from the plurality and probabilistically generating …” in claim 17, should read “selecting a description of a branch from the plurality of descriptions and probabilistically generating…”. Emphasis added. Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Supreme Court has established a two-step framework for this analysis, wherein a claim does not satisfy § 101 if (1) it is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea, and (2), if so, the particular elements of the claim, considered “both individually and as an ordered combination,” do not add enough to “transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355). Applicant is also directed to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The instantly claimed invention (claim(s) 15-22 being representative) is directed to a method. Therefore, the instantly claimed invention falls into one of the four statutory categories. [Step 1: YES]
Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then it is determined in in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Under the MPEP § 2106.04, the Step 2A (Prong 1) analysis requires determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claim(s) 15-22 recite the following steps which fall under the mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas:
Claim 15 recites generating a collection of model neurites, including repeatedly selecting a description of a branch from the plurality; the limitation generating collection of models by repeatedly selecting can be practically performed in human mind (mental process) since human mind can generate/make models by repeatedly selecting data.
Claim 15 further recites probabilistically generating a topology of a model neurite based on the selected description, wherein the probabilistic generation of the model neurite includes deciding whether bifurcate, terminate, or continue the model neurites at different positions based on the selected description; the limitation probabilistically generating is considered a mathematical calculation (see specification pg. 8), and as such, falls into mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas.
Claim 16 recites foreclosing selection of any description from the collection more than once (mental process of preventing a selection).
Claim 17 recites a branch is generated by selecting a description of a branch from the plurality and probabilistically generating the topology of the branch based on the selected description (mental process of selecting a description; mathematical calculation/mathematical process of generating a topology (see above)).
Claim 19 recites calculating a direction in which daughters emerge from the bifurcation by assuming that each daughter branch emerges from a parent branch at a same angle (mathematical calculation/mathematical process).
Claim 20 recites calculating a direction in which daughters emerge from the bifurcation by assuming that a first daughter branch continues in a same direction as a parent branch (mathematical calculation/mathematical process).
Claim 22 recites assigning model neurites to cell bodies, wherein a number of the model neurites assigned to each of the cell bodies comprises a value that is characteristic of neurons of a morphological type (mental process of assigning values); b) assigning sizes to the cell bodies, wherein the sizes are characteristic of the neurons of the morphological type (mental process of assigning size); or c) assigning diameters to terminations of the model neurites, wherein the diameters of the terminations are characteristic of terminations in the neurons of the morphological type (mental process of assigning diameter); or d) defining diameters of the model neurites, wherein the diameters are characteristic of the neurons of the morphological type (mental process of defining diameter).
Claims 18 and 21 provide additional information about the abstract idea.
The identified claims recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) and/or fall into one of the groups of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity for the reasons set forth above. See MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2) III and MPEP 2106.04 (b) I. Therefore, claims are directed to one or more judicial exception(s) and require further analysis in Prong Two. [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES]
Step 2A: Prong 2: Under the MPEP § 2106.04, the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis requires identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons.
The additional elements of claim(s) 15-22 include the following.
Claim 15 recites a computer-implemented method, receiving a plurality of descriptions of branches of dendrites of one or more neurons.
The additional element of a computer is generic computer components and/or processes. There are no limitations that indicate that the computer in the computer-implemented method requires anything other than generic computing systems. The courts have found the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the additional elements of receiving a plurality of descriptions amount to necessary data gathering. The courts have found the limitations that amount to necessary data gathering and outputting are insignificant extra-solution activity that do not integrate a recited judicial exception into a practical application in Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 and O/P Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, the additionally recited elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity and, as such, the claims as a whole do no integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
MPEP 2106.04(d). I lists the following example considerations for evaluating whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or another technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b).
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using 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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In Step 2A, Prong 1 above, claim steps and/or elements were identified as part of one or more judicial exceptions (JEs).
In Step 2B below, any remaining steps and/or elements are therefore in addition to the identified JE(s). Any such additional steps and additional elements are further discussed in Step 2B.
Here in Step 2A, Prong 2, no additional step or element clearly demonstrates integration of the JE(s) into a practical application.
At this point in examination, it is not yet the case that any of the Step 2A, Prong 2 considerations enumerated above clearly demonstrates integration of the identified JE(s) into a practical application. Referring to the considerations above, none of 1. an improvement, 2. treatment, 3. a particular machine or 4. a transformation is clear in the record.
In conclusion regarding Prong 2, claims 15-22 are directed to an abstract idea. [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO]
Step 2B: In the second step it is determined whether the claimed subject matter includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. An inventive concept cannot be furnished by an abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The additional elements of claim(s) 15-22 include the following.
Claim 15 recites a computer-implemented method, receiving a plurality of descriptions of branches of dendrites of one or more neurons.
The additional element of a computer is conventional computer components and/or processes. The courts have found the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TU Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607,613,118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Furthermore, the additional elements of receiving a plurality of descriptions amount to necessary data gathering. The courts have found the limitations that amount to necessary data gathering and outputting are insignificant extra-solution activity that do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. [Step 2B: NO]
Therefore, the instantly rejected claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 15-17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samsonovich (Algorithmic description of hippocampal granule cell dendritic morphology, Neurocomputing 65–66 (2005) 253–260; as cited in IDS form dated 04/19/2022) in view of Fernández (A Model for Generating Synthetic Dendrites of Cortical Neurons, "23rd International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Other Applications of Applied Intelligent Systems, IEA/AIE 2010", 01/06/2010 - 04/06/2010, pages 1-10; as cited in the attached 892 form).
Regarding claim 15, the recited a computer-implemented method for generating model neurons, is taught as, a method for generating virtual neurons; where the method is a computer-generated method (Samsonovich: abstract; Fig. 2).
The recited receiving a plurality of descriptions of branches of dendrites of one or more neurons, is taught as, Dendrites of the remaining 36 cells had 512(±188) continuation points and 14(±3) bifurcations per cell (Samsonovich: pg. 254, para. 2).
The recited each of the descriptions characterizes, for an individual branch, i) a distance from a cell body at which the individual branch first bifurcates; is taught as, The model successfully captures all major dendritic morphometrics of rat dentate granule cells, including topological asymmetry, the number of dendritic trees, total degree, the mean and the standard deviation of the path distance of bifurcation points from the soma (Samsonovich: pg. 259, para. 2).
The recited ii) a distance from the cell body at which the individual branch actually terminates, is taught as, the mean and the standard deviation of the path distance of terminal tips from the soma, the total dendritic area and the dendritic area center of mass; termination of all dendrites, regardless of the value of the hidden parameter m, was enforced at a maximum distance from the soma (Samsonovich: pg. 259, para. 2; pg. 254, last para.)
The recited generating a collection of model neurites, is taught as, dendritic growth is simulated based on a Markov process with two hidden parameters: the number of terminal tips to be added, or degree (m), and the path distance from the soma (t); the pair of virtual morphologies (Fig. 2C and D) (Samsonovich: pg. 254. Para. 3).
The recited selecting a description of a branch from the plurality and probabilistically generating a topology of a model neurite based on the selected description, wherein the probabilistic generation of the model neurite includes deciding whether to bifurcate, terminate, or continue the model neurites at different positions based on the selected description, is taught as, neurons are represented as binary tree structures constructed with a finite set of cylindrical segments, each with an individual parent in the path to the root (soma), and with 0, 1, or 2 “daughter” segments at the opposite end (constituting termination, continuation, or bifurcation points); … Phase 1 consists of the ‘‘virtual growth’’ of a skeletonized dendrogram (i.e., a dendrogram without the diameter information) starting from the soma and dendritic stems. Dendritic growth is simulated based on a Markov process with two hidden parameters: the number of terminal tips to be added, or degree (m), and the path distance from the soma (t). At each bifurcation, the degree is randomly partitioned among the daughters (with the uniform probability) (Samsonovich: pg. 254. Para. 2 and 3; (Fig. 2C and D))
Further regarding claim 15, Samsonovich does not teach repeatedly selecting a description of a branch,
Fernández teaches a computational method to generate realistic virtual dendritic trees using morphological data (Fernández: abstract). Fernández further teaches that the branching scheme represents some topological aspects, such as the number of branches and the symmetry of these branches, together with some aggregated morphometric parameters, such as the length of the dendrite (and branches) the distance to the cell soma and the tortuosity (Fernández: pg. 4, first para.).
Fernández further teaches that the method has two main components: (i) a procedure to construct a branching model and (ii) a dendrite sampler to use the model to produce virtual dendrites computing pathlength between the end of segments and soma, where the dendric sampler operates on segments computing distances between the end of segment and soma, as well as, beginning and end of the segment (Fernández: pg. 4, last para.- pg. 5, first para.)
Further regarding limitations of repeatedly selecting a description of a branch and generating a topology, Fernández teaches repeating the dendrite sample process iteratively (Fernández: pg. 5, para. 2).
Regarding claim 16, the recited foreclosing selection of any description from the collection more than once, is taught as, the sampler extracts the shortest (minimum global pathlength) one and uses the termination model to predict if the branch finishes at this position. If not, the segment has to bifurcate. The bifurcation is performed sampling a pathlength and a Euclidean distance for each of the branches (using the pathlength model and the Euclidean distance model). Then, both branches are included in the set of growing segments. The process is repeated iteratively until there are no growing branches in the set (Fernández: pg. 5, para. 2; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, the recited in response to a determination that a first of the model neurites is to bifurcate, a branch is generated by selecting a description of a branch from the plurality and probabilistically generating the topology of the branch based on the selected description, is taught as, The sampler extracts the shortest (minimum global pathlength) one and uses the termination model to predict if the branch finishes at this position. If not, the segment has to bifurcate. The bifurcation is performed sampling a pathlength and a Euclidean distance for each of the branches (using the pathlength model and the Euclidean distance model) (Fernández: pg. 5, para. 2; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 22, the recited c) assigning diameters to terminations of the model neurites, wherein the diameters of the terminations are characteristic of terminations in the neurons of the morphological type; or d) defining diameters of the model neurites, wherein the diameters are characteristic of the neurons of the morphological type, is taught as, assigning diameters by sampling a gamma distribution, parameters of which are taken as linear functions of the degree m, with the coefficients (four real numbers) extracted from the population of real cells (Samsonovich: pg. 255, para. 2).
Rationale for combining Samsonovich and Fernández:
In KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex, the Supreme Court, in rejecting the rigid application of the teaching, suggestion, and motivation test by the Federal Circuit, indicated that “The principles underlying [earlier] cases are instructive when the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” KSR Int'l v. Teleflex lnc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007).
Applying the KSR standard to Samsonovich and Fernández, Examiner concludes that the combination of Samsonovich and Fernández represents the use of known techniques to improve similar methods. Both Samsonovich and Fernández are directed to generating model neurons. Samsonovich disclosed receiving description of branches that characterize a distance from cell body to where the branch bifurcates and terminates and generating collection of model neurons by selecting a description of a branch. In the same field of research, Fernández provided repeatedly for selecting a description of a branch, for the purpose generating model neurons. Combining the neuron model of Samsonovich with the known technique of repeatedly selecting description of branches would have allowed for more accurate neuron models. One ordinary skilled in the art before he effective filing data of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success at combining the method of Samsonovich and Fernández. This combination would have been expected to have provided a synthetic population that reflects the natural structural variation found in real brains. Therefore, the invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samsonovich in view of Fernández, as applied to claims 15-17 and 22 above, and further in view of Kanari (A Topological Representation of Branching Neuronal Morphologies, Neuroinform (2018) 16:3–13, Published online: 3 October 2017, pages: 1-13).
Claim 18 depends on claim 15. Limitations of claim 15 are taught in the above rejections.
Regarding claim 18, Samsonovich and Fernández do not teach that the descriptions further characterize iii) an angle between daughter branches at a bifurcation. Kanari teaches these limitations.
Kanari teaches a method for standardizing the description and categorization of complex biological branching structures, such as neurons, to quantify structural differences (Kanari: abstract). Further regarding limitations of characterizing an angle between daughter branches, Kanari teaches defining branch angles (Kanari: supporting information: pg. 20; Figure S6).
Regarding claim 19, the recited calculating a direction in which daughters emerge from the bifurcation by assuming that each daughter branch emerges from a parent branch at the same angle, is taught as, at each bifurcation, the degree is randomly partitioned among the daughters (with the uniform probability) (Samsonovich: pg. 253, para. 3).
Regarding claim 20, the recited calculating a direction in which daughters emerge from the bifurcation by assuming that a first daughter branch continues in a same direction as a parent branch. Samsonovich teaches at each bifurcation, the degree is randomly partitioned among the daughters (with the uniform probability) (Samsonovich: pg. 253, para. 3). Kanari teaches that each tree consists of branches, i.e., paths between two branch points, which are generated based on a simple random walk (SRW, [21]) in R3. The position of the walk at each step is given as a weighted sum of a predefined direction dn and a simple random walk; The branch length is the length of each edge. The branch angle defines the bifurcation angle between two children of a branch point. The degree of randomness indicates if the edge is a straight line or a simple random walk. (Kanari: supporting information: pg. 20, para. 1; Figure S6).
Regarding claim 21, Samsonovich and Fernández do not teach that each of the plurality of descriptions of branches comprises a Topological Morphology Descriptor. Kanari teaches a method for encoding the spatial structure of any tree as a “barcode”, a unique topological signature/ Topological Morphology Descriptor (TMD) (Kanari: Abstract).
Rationale for combining Samsonovich, Fernández, and Kanari:
Applying the KSR standard to Samsonovich, Fernández, and Kanari, Examiner concludes that the combination of Samsonovich, Fernández, and Kanari represents the use of known techniques to improve similar methods. Samsonovich, Fernández, and Kanari are directed to generating model neurons. Samsonovich and Fernández disclosed receiving description of branches that characterize a distance from cell body to where the branch bifurcates and terminates and generating collection of model neurons by selecting a description of a branch. In the same field of research, Kanari provided characterizing an angle between daughter branches at a bifurcation. Combining the neuron model of Samsonovich and Fernández with the known technique of characterizing an angle between daughter branches would have allowed for accounting for changing in branching geometry. One ordinary skilled in the art before he effective filing data of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success at combining the method of Samsonovich and Fernández with the known technique of Kanari. This combination would have been expected to have provided a synthetic population that reflects the natural structural variation found in real brains. Therefore, the invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHAZAL SABOUR whose telephone number is (703)756-1289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Larry D. Riggs can be reached at (571) 270-3062. 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.
/G.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/LARRY D RIGGS II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1686
Prosecution Insights