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 .
Comments
The Amendment – After Non-Final Rejection filed on January 20, 2026 has been entered and made of record.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-19, and 22-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 10: “the pre-defined space” should read -- the pre-defined multiple-dimensional space --
Claim 1 line 12: “the pre-defined space” should read -- the pre-defined multiple-dimensional space –
Claims 5-19: Status identifiers “Withdrawn” should be changed to “Cancelled” upon allowance.
Claim 22 line 1: “the MSD” should read -- the MDS --
Claim 22 line 3: “the MSD” should read -- the MDS --
Claim 23 line 1: “the MSD” should read -- the MDS --
Claim 23 line 3: “the MSD” should read -- the MDS --
Claim 24 line 1: “the MSD” should read -- the MDS --
Claim 24 line 3: “the MSD” should read -- the MDS --
Claim 25 line 1: “the MSD” should read -- the MDS --
Claim 25 line 3: “the MSD” should read -- the MDS --
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 20-25 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.
The term “output values derived from the input image are reasonable” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reasonable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
It should be noted that the “output values derived from the input image are reasonable” limitation in claim 1, appears to be indefinite since it is unclear as to which values are derived from the input image. According to at least page 8 of the originally field specification, it appears that the output values are the output values of the models or algorithms. Claim 1 at lines 3-4 recites “performing a plurality of quality checks on an input image by algorithms or AI models”. It appears that these quality checks on the input image by algorithms or AI models generate or derive the output values recited in claim 1 at line 14. However, the limitation as claimed does not require that theses output values be from the performance of the quality checks on the input image by the algorithms or AI models. Thus, indefinite for this reason.
In addition, the term “reasonable” is indefinite because it is a relative term not defined in the claim. According to at least page 8 of the originally filed specification, the OQC check whether the output values of the models or algorithms are reasonable. This can be done by setting a normal acceptable range based on the distribution of training data, a reasonable range of physiological structural measurement, or an internal value generated by the model (e.g. the maximum heatmap predicted by the landmark model at each point). Therefore, it is unclear if the “reasonable” term is referring to whether the output values are within a normal acceptable range based on the distribution of training data, whether the output values are within a reasonable range of physiological structural measurement, or an internal value generated by the model (e.g. the maximum heatmap predicted by the landmark model at each point). Thus, indefinite for this reason.
Claims 2, 3, and 20-25 depend upon claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 20-25, as best understood, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 1, the closest prior art made of record fails to disclose, teach, and/or suggest, inter alia, the determination of a quality control (QC) result, by at least, performing a plurality of quality checks on an input image by algorithms or AI models, the plurality of quality checks comprises at least one input quality control (IQC) check and at least one output quality control (OQC) check, providing a pre-defined multiple-dimensional space (MDS) according to the number and type of the plurality of quality checks, the dimension number of MDS is equal to or larger than the number of the plurality of quality checks, mapping the result of the plurality of quality checks onto a corresponding position of the pre-defined multi-dimensional space, and determining the QC result based on the information of the corresponding position on the pre-defined multi-dimensional space, and in particular, the at least one IQC checks the quality of the input image, and the at least one OQC checks whether output values derived from the performance of the plurality of quality checks on the input image by the algorithms or AI models are within a normal acceptable range based on the distribution of training data, a reasonable range of physiological structural measurement, or an internal value generated by the models.
Response to Arguments
Specification
With respect to the specification, Applicant’s arguments (Remarks dated January 20, 2026, pages 8-9) have been fully considered. The claimed “first spine QC region”, “second spine QC region”, “third spine QC region”, and “fourth spine QC region” appears to be correlated with Table 6: The rule table of overall QC for spinal images (Specification at page 21). Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
With respect to claim 1, Applicant has amended the claim in order to correct for minor informalities. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
With respect to claim 1, Applicant has amended the claim in order to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to claims 23-25, Applicant’s arguments (Remarks dated January 20, 2026, page 9 lines 6-14) have been fully considered. Applicant respectfully submits that the terms “the first/second/third/fourth spine QC region” are used only to distinguish a QC region from another one, instead of indicating a sequential relationship. Examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
With respect to claims 1-3, 20, and 21, Applicant’s arguments (Remarks dated January 20, 2026, pages 9-11) have been fully considered. However, in view of the instant amendment, and upon further consideration and search, the previous ground(s) of rejection have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSE M TORRES whose telephone number is (571)270-1356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM 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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at 571-272-2976. 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.
/JOSE M TORRES/Examiner, Art Unit 2664 04/29/2026
/JENNIFER MEHMOOD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights