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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 8 November, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202211393732 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 14 August, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment of the specification has been acknowledged.
The amendment of claims 1, 5, 12, 16, 20 has been acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, section “Specification”, filed 14 August, 2026 with respect to the objection to the specification has been fully considered and are not persuasive.
With respect to the amended specification filed 8 May, 2026 which changed the formula for Qi in ¶ 0013 and 0035 from
Q
i
=
W
F
*
V
o
x
F
i
*
V
o
x
F
_
i
T
(hereinafter “Eq. A”) to
Q
i
=
W
F
⊙
(
V
o
x
F
i
*
V
o
x
F
i
T
)
(hereinafter “Eq. B”), these formulas are not equivalent for all cases. Specifically, as indicated in the previous office action dated Eq. A is solvable as long as WF is a matrix of size [X x S], where X greater than or equal to 1, resulting in a Qi matrix of size [X x S]. This is distinctly different in scope from Eq. B which is solvable only when WF is a matrix of size [S x S], resulting in a Qi matrix of size [S x S]. As such, Eq. A is broader than Eq. B and the amendment filed 8 May, 2026 narrows the scope of the formula and as such is new matter.
The applicant states in the reply filed 14 August, 2026 that “Q” computed based on voxel-level features represents similarity between voxels in the component, and one skilled in the art can understand that Q is a symmetric matrix of dimensions (S x S). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Upon reviewing the applicant’s specifications filed 8 November, 2023 and 8 May, 2026, it is never explicitly defined that either matrix WF or Q are any specific dimensions. As Q is dependent on the dimensions of WF as indicated above, these matrices would need to be defined in the specification dated for the original filing on 8 November, 2023 as being a matrix of [S x S] in order for Eq. A to perform exactly the same as Eq. B. Stating this in the reply is not enough to meet this threshold. Additionally, amending in that matrix WF or Q are of a size [S x S] would constitute as new matter as it would serve to narrow the scope of these variables.
However, the examiner notes that the existing new matter rejection can be overcome by cancelling the amendment to the specification and claims 7 and 18 that amends Eq. A to Eq. B and returning to the original formula Eq. A in the claims and specification. As the applicant notes that matrix Q is a matrix of [S x S], meaning that matrix WF would also be of size [S x S], Eq. A performs identically to Eq. B and would advance prosecution.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 14, section “Claim Objections”, filed 14 August, 2026 with respect to the objection of claims 1, 6 – 9, and 17 - 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 1, 6 – 9, and 17 - 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 15, section “Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112”, filed 14 August, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that in the previous office action, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) was made for claim 1, however, the new matter which changed the equation for Qi from
Q
i
=
W
F
*
V
o
x
F
i
*
V
o
x
F
_
i
T
to
Q
i
=
W
F
⊙
(
V
o
x
F
i
*
V
o
x
F
i
T
)
was introduced in claims 7 and 18. As the examiner is upholding this rejection, it will be properly applied against claims 7 and 18 and withdrawn from claim 1.
With respect to the amended claims filed 8 May, 2026 which change the formula for Qi in ¶ 0013 and 0035 from
Q
i
=
W
F
*
V
o
x
F
i
*
V
o
x
F
_
i
T
(hereinafter “Eq. A”) to
Q
i
=
W
F
⊙
(
V
o
x
F
i
*
V
o
x
F
i
T
)
(hereinafter “Eq. B”), these formulas are not equivalent for all cases. Specifically, as indicated in the previous office action dated 15 May, 2026, Eq. A is solvable as long as WF is a matrix of size [X x S], where X greater than or equal to 1, resulting in a Qi matrix of size [X x S]. This is distinctly different in scope from Eq. B which is solvable only when WF is a matrix of size [S x S], resulting in a Qi matrix of size [S x S]. As X is a variable which must be greater than or equal to 1, whereas S is a scalar value, Eq. A is broader in scope than Eq. B and the amendment filed 8 May, 2026 narrows the scope of the formula this constituting new matter.
The applicant states in the reply filed 14 August, 2026 that “Q” computed based on voxel-level features represents similarity between voxels in the component, and one skilled in the art can understand that Q is a symmetric matrix of dimensions (S x S). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Upon reviewing the applicant’s specifications filed 8 November, 2023 and 8 May, 2026, it is never explicitly defined that either matrix WF or Q are any specific dimensions, the dimensionality is ascertained by the examiner by utilizing the rules of matrix multiplication. As Q is dependent on the dimensions of WF as indicated above, these matrices would need to be defined in the specification dated for the original filing on 8 November, 2023 as being a matrix of [S x S] in order for Eq. A to perform exactly the same as Eq. B to permit the amendment of the formula. Stating this dimensional constraint in the reply is not enough to meet this threshold and permit the amendment. Additionally, further amending that matrix WF or Q are of a size [S x S] into the claim or specification would constitute as new matter as it would serve to narrow the scope of these variables and is not in any way disclosed in the original filing of the application.
However, the examiner notes that this new matter rejection can be overcome by cancelling the amendment to the specification and claims 7 and 18 that amends Eq. A to Eq. B and returning to the original formula, Eq. A, in the claims and specification. As the applicant notes that matrix Q is a matrix of [S x S], meaning that matrix WF would also be of size [S x S], Eq. A performs identically to Eq. B and this change would advance prosecution.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 15, section “Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112”, filed 14 August, 2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1 – 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13 – 15, and 17 - 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1 – 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13 – 15, and 17 - 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 17, section “Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112”, filed 14 August, 2026 with respect to the rejections of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) has been withdrawn.
Specification
The amendment filed 8 May, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Applicant has amended the specification to change the formula for Qi in ¶ 0013 and 0035 from
Q
i
=
W
F
*
V
o
x
F
i
*
V
o
x
F
_
i
T
to
Q
i
=
W
F
⊙
(
V
o
x
F
i
*
V
o
x
F
i
T
)
. These are distinct equations which operate differently and would not produce the same result.
Regarding the equation
Q
i
=
W
F
*
V
o
x
F
i
*
V
o
x
F
_
i
T
, this is representative of a matrix multiplication equation. As VoxF_i is defined to be an (S x 1) matrix in ¶ 0013 and 0035, WF would have to be a matrix of size (X x S) in order for multiplication between these two matrices to function. This would produce a matrix of size (X x 1) which would then be multiplied by VoxF_iT which, being a transpose of VoxF_i, would have dimensions of (1 x S). This would finally produce a Qi matrix of (X x S). These multiplications could also be performed in any order and would yield a final Qi matrix of (X x S).
Regarding the equation
Q
i
=
W
F
⊙
(
V
o
x
F
i
*
V
o
x
F
i
T
)
, the
⊙
operator is understood by the examiner to be the Hadamard product. This mathematical operator for matrices requires the two matrices being multiplied to be of the exact same dimensions. Additionally, the inclusion of the parenthesis would require the multiplication of VoxFi and VoxFiT to be performed first. This would yield a matrix of (S x S). In order for the
⊙
operator to function, the matrix WF must be of equal dimensions as the product of VoxFi and VoxFiT--. This would then yield a Qi matrix of dimensions (S x S) as well. These equations are therefore not the same in form or function and this amendment constitutes new matter. The only circumstance these two equations would produce matrices of the same size would be if WF were a matrix of (S x S), however, that is neither defined in the claims or specification and cannot be reasonably determined in light of the applicant’s specification that is the exact circumstance of this invention.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 7, 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 states “voxel-level features of each individual-level component to be estimated”, however, there is no mention of “individual-level components” anywhere in this claim. The “voxel-level features” calculated in step 4 appear to be calculated for each voxel within the functional network (FN) but there is no indication of what the “individual-level component” is with respect to this. When reviewing the specification, it is also unclear what this is meant to be as ¶ 0004 mentioned “individual-level components” in the context of broadly estimating them in alternative methods in the art. Claims 6, 7, 17, and 18 are objected for the same reasoning.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 – 9, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has previously amended claims 7 and 18 to change the formula for Qi from
Q
i
=
W
F
*
V
o
x
F
i
*
V
o
x
F
_
i
T
to
Q
i
=
W
F
⊙
(
V
o
x
F
i
*
V
o
x
F
i
T
)
. These are distinct equations which operate differently and would not produce the same result.
Regarding the equation
Q
i
=
W
F
*
V
o
x
F
i
*
V
o
x
F
_
i
T
, this is representative of a matrix multiplication equation. As VoxF_i is defined to be an (S x 1) matrix in ¶ 0013 and 0035, WF would have to be a matrix of size (X x S) in order for multiplication between these two matrices to function. This would produce a matrix of size (X x 1) which would then be multiplied by VoxF_iT which, being a transpose of VoxF_i, would have dimensions of (1 x S). This would finally produce a Qi matrix of (X x S). These multiplications could also be performed in any order and would yield a final Qi matrix of (X x S).
Regarding the equation
Q
i
=
W
F
⊙
(
V
o
x
F
i
*
V
o
x
F
i
T
)
, the
⊙
operator is understood by the examiner to be the Hadamard product. This mathematical operator for matrices requires the two matrices being multiplied to be of the exact same dimensions. Additionally, the inclusion of the parenthesis would require the multiplication of VoxFi and VoxFiT to be performed first. This would yield a matrix of (S x S). In order for the
⊙
operator to function, the matrix WF must be of equal dimensions as the product of VoxFi and VoxFiT--. This would then yield a Qi matrix of dimensions (S x S) as well. These equations are therefore not the same in form or function and this amendment constitutes new matter. The only circumstance these two equations would produce matrices of the same size would be if WF were a matrix of (S x S), however, that is neither defined in the claims or specification and cannot be reasonably determined in light of the applicant’s specification that is the exact circumstance of this invention.
The examiner notes that this new matter rejection can be overcome by cancelling the amendment to the specification and claims 7 and 18 that amends Eq. A to Eq. B and returning to the original formula, Eq. A, in the claims and specification. As the applicant notes that matrix Q is a matrix of [S x S], meaning that matrix WF would also be of size [S x S], Eq. A performs identically to Eq. B and this change would advance prosecution.
Claims 8, 9, and 19 are rejected for their dependence on claims 7 and 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 4, 6, 10, 12 – 15, 17 and 20 would be allowed over the prior art if all claim objections above are remedied.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art Ding et al (CN112002428, employed using the provided machine translation) teaches that it was known at the time the application was filed to perform a group information guided smooth independent component analysis method for brain functional network (FN) analysis, implemented by a computer device, wherein the computer device comprises a processor and a memory that stores computer program instructions, and the method comprises following steps: step 1 comprises preprocessing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data of each subject and representing four-dimensional data corresponding to the fMRI data of each subject as a two-dimensional matrix; step 2 comprises performing dimension reduction on data of two-dimensional matrices of all subjects at both a subject level and a group level in sequence along a temporal direction by using principal component analysis (PCA); step 3 comprises performing independent component analysis (ICA) on dimension-reduced data to obtain group-level independent components (ICs) and identify functional network (FN)-related group-level ICs, wherein the dimension-reduced data refers to dimensionally reduced data at the group level.
However, the prior art, alone or in combination, does not appear to teach or suggest at step 3, a FastlCA algorithm or Infomax algorithm is applied for the ICA to obtain group-level ICs that are then used for the identification of FN-related group-level ICs for the initialization of reference components (R;, i = 1. 2, ... , n2), initializing each reference component by using each FN-related group-level IC and calculating 13 voxel-level features for each voxel within the FN to be estimated based on each initialized reference component, step 5 comprises constructing a multi-objective function by employing the voxel-level features of each individual-level component to be estimated, each initialized reference component, and an individual subject's data matrix, and then normalizing the multi-objective function, wherein the individual subject's data matrix is the two-dimensional matrix, step 6 comprises iteratively optimizing the multi-objective function to generate an IC that represents an FN for the individual subject, if a termination condition is not met, updating each initialized reference component and then performing step 4 to step 5 again, step 7 comprises outputting the IC that represents the FN for the individual subject, step 8 comprises calculating a time course of the FN for the individual subject, step 9 comprises calculating FN s and corresponding time courses for all subjects according to step 4 to step 8, wherein the FN s and corresponding time courses are configured to be utilized for group difference detection, and brain disease classification or prediction.
Claims 2 – 4, 6, 10, 12 – 15, 17 and 20 depend from independent claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ding et al (CN112002428, employed using the provided machine translation) teaches a method for processing functional MRI images to construct a whole brain individualized brain function map based on independent components networks. A distinct difference between this art and the applicant’s invention is that Ding does not appear to determine 13 different voxel-level features for each voxel as claimed in independent claim 1.
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 ANDREW JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-4573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 EST, off Every Other Friday.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272-7778. 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 B. JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 2667 /MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights