DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on August 3, 2026 and August 11, 2026 concerning application No. 18/311,338 filed on May 3, 2023.
Claims 1, 5-7, 11-12, and 21-32 are currently pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 3, 2026 and August 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/03/2026 regarding the claim objections have been fully considered. The amendments to the claims have been entered and overcome the claims objections of claims 4, 5 and 7 previously set forth.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/03/2026 regarding the 35 USC 112b rejection have been fully considered. The amendments to the claims have been entered and overcome the 35 USC 112b rejection of claims 4 and 11 previously set forth.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/03/2026 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered. The amendments to the claims have been entered and overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection of the claims previously set forth.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/03/2026 regarding the prior art rejection have been fully considered. The amendments to the claims have been entered and overcome the prior art rejection previously set forth.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 11, 22, 28, and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 6, “an image” should read “the image”,
Claim 11, line 31, “a stroke affected” should read “the stroke affected”,
Claim 11, line 32, “a contralateral” should read “the contralateral”,
Claim 11, lines 45-46, “a likelihood” should read “the likelihood”,
Claim 22, line 4, “a likelihood” should read “the likelihood”,
Claim 28, line 7, “a likelihood” should read “the likelihood”,
Claim 31, line 1, “the system of claim 1” should read “the system of claim 11”.
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, 5-7, 12, 21-26, and 29-32 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 recites the limitation “extracting an image of the patient’s brain from the CT scans”, which is considered indefinite. It is not clear to the examiner whether the extracted image corresponds to one of the plurality of slices or if the image is separate from the slices. For the purpose of examination and this office action it is being interpreted that the image is one of the plurality of slices.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “identifying CSF in the extracted image of the patient’s brain in the CT scans on each side of the automatically determined midline includes identifying a first volume of CSF from the first image of the patient’s brain and a second volume of CSF from the second image of the patient’s brain”, which is considered indefinite. It is not clear to the examiner whether the identifying of the first volume of CSF and the second volume of CSF includes separately identifying a volume of CSF on each side of the determined midline in each of the first image and the second image or if the identifying a volume of CSF includes identifying the CSF volume for the entirety of the first image and the second image. For the purpose of examination and this office action it is being interpreted that the identifying includes separately identifying a volume of CSF on each side of the determined midline in each of the first image and the second image.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “extract an image of the patient’s brain from the CT scans”, which is considered indefinite. It is not clear to the examiner whether the extracted image corresponds to one of the plurality of slices recited in claim 11 or if the image is separate from the slices. For the purpose of examination and this office action it is being interpreted that the image is one of the plurality of slices.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “extract an image of the patient’s brain from the CT scans and identify CSF in the extracted image of the patient’s brain in the CT scans”, which is considered indefinite. It is not clear to the examiner whether the recited limitation is the same as or different from “automatically segment the CT scans into cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) using a deep learning algorithm”. For the purpose of examination and this office action it is being interpreted that the limitations are the same because determining CSF in a segmented CSF scan is considered to be the same as identifying CSF in an extracted image of the patient’s brain.
Claims 23 and 29 recite the limitation “thresholding the segmented infarct region and the mirrored region to exclude voxels between a lower threshold value and an upper threshold value” which is considered indefinite. It is not clear to the examiner how the voxels can be excluded using a threshold value when it has not been previously established that the voxels have a unit value. For the purpose of examination the examiner is interpreting the voxels as having a Hounsfield unit value.
Claims dependent upon the rejected claims above, but not directly addressed, are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claim(s) they respectively depend upon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-7, 11-12, and 21-32 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections and 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BEGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 5712701790. 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.
/ANDREW W BEGEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
