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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 8, filed 8/18/2026, with respect to claims 1-2, 5, 9, 11, and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Regarding claim 9, the claim should have been claim 10 as stated in the Remarks. The claim objections of 1-2, 5, 10, 11, and 13 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 9, filed 8/18/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 19, 2 and 5, and 11-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of these claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 8-9, filed 8/18/2026, with respect to the previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 8 under 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new 112(b) rejection is made, in light of the amendments as detailed below.
Therefore, this action is made FINAL.
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 and 4-20 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.
Independent Claim 1 recites the limitation “the deep learning model” in page 2 of the Claims. The limitations of claims 1 and 2 previously disclosed a “deep learning neural network” in the claims filed 12/24/2025. Now, amended claim 1, which also incorporates claim 2, discloses “a deep learning model” instead of “the deep learning neural network”. It is unclear what the difference between the neural network, the deep learning neural network, and the deep learning model within the claim. Further, according to the Applicant’s originally filed Specification, filed 09/01/2023, it only discloses a “deep learning model”, but does not explicitly disclose a “deep learning neural network” or “neural network”. Dependent claims 4-10 and 19 are also rejected for depending upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally, dependent Claim 8 recites the limitation “the training dataset” in page 3 of the Claims. It is unclear what the training dataset is supposed to refer to. Claims 5 and 8, which depends from claim 5, disclose the ROI dataset, and claim 5 additionally discloses the raw dataset. Lastly claim 1 discloses a composed dataset and a raw dataset. However, none of the claims disclose “a training dataset.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Independent Claims 11 and 13 recite the limitations “input the at least one image obtained in a neural network…”. The claims both proceed to disclose a deep learning neural network instead of just “a neural network”. It is unclear what the difference between the neural network, the deep learning neural network, and the deep learning model within the claim, as also stated above. Dependent claims 12, 14-18, and 20 are also rejected for depending upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 Bradley Obas Felix whose telephone number is (703)756-1314. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 5712728243. 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.
/BRADLEY O FELIX/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
