DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27, 2026 has been entered. In applicant’s reply filed on August 27, 2026, claims 1-3 are currently amended.
Claims 1-4 are pending in this application.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments presented in “Remarks” dated August 27, 2026, have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as presented below, necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
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 1-4 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. The following limitations are not adequately supported in the written disclosure:
The specification does not provide support for “medical imaging device” or “artificial satellite physical sensor” as currently amended in the preamble of independent Claim 1 on page 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
75
783
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The specification has some support for the following amendments [0042] but does not describe all the features claimed. The following features were amended into independent Claim 1 on page 4, the first paragraph at the top of the page:
PNG
media_image2.png
301
805
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant is requested to amend the claims in a manner that is supported by the written disclosure. The closest support for the amended features was found in the following paragraph:
PNG
media_image3.png
395
1163
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The following features presented at the very end of Claim 1 are also not supported by the written disclosure:
PNG
media_image4.png
72
753
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Neither “Lesion features” nor “geological evolution features” are ever mentioned in the written disclosure. Applicant is advised to amend the claim in a manner that is consistent with the written disclosure to ensure that there is adequate support and enablement for the amended features.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claim 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons.
The following limitations, presented on page 4, the first paragraph at the top of the page, which were amended into independent Claim 1 lead to indefintiness as it is unclear the manner in which this dataset is being applied and the nature by which the various features are being detected, as the overall disclosure is directed to a more generalized dataset and does not fully describe how these datasets would have been analyzed or how the algorithm is applied to these particular datasets. The indefinite claimed limitations recite:
PNG
media_image2.png
301
805
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant is requested to amend the claims in a manner that is supported by the written disclosure. The specification has some support for the following amendments [0042] but does not describe all the features claimed.
PNG
media_image3.png
395
1163
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The Reasons for Allowance were previously presented in the Office Action dated June 18, 2026 and upon overcoming the issues presented above, will be written in the future office action.
Therefore, Claim 1 and its dependent Claims 2-4 are not rejected over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHMINA ANSARI whose telephone number is 571-270-3379. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP Flex - Monday through Friday 9 to 5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SUMATI LEFKOWITZ can be reached on 571-272-3638. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications. TC 2600’s customer service number is 571-272-2600.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2600.
2662
/TA/
September 9, 2026
/TAHMINA N ANSARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights