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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9, filed 10 Aug 2026, with respect to the specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objections of 08 Apr 2026 have been withdrawn in view of the amended specification
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9, filed 10 Aug 2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of 08 Apr 2026 have been withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s acknowledgement, see pg. 9-10, filed 10 Aug 2026 with respect to the Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been noted. The Claim Interpretation previously noted in the Non-Final Office Action of 08 Apr 2026 is hereby being maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10-11, filed 10 Aug 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the gestational age prediction module claimed to generate an estimate of the gestational age in independent claims 1, 13, and 24, Applicant argues that pg. 18, lines 2-3 and pg. 26, lines 2-11 of the original specification “support the amended claim language … a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Applicant is in possession of the claimed gestational age prediction module. The specification also describes in detail an example of how the training was performed (see pages 16-24 of the specification).” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Page 18, lines 2-3 and pg. 26, lines 2-11 of the original specification do not disclose in sufficient detail the steps or flowcharts of how the linear layer generates an estimate of the gestational age of the human fetus from the weighted sum vector and weights learned during training. In particular, a mere statement of “applies weight(s)” (see specifically pg. 26, lines 1-3 of the original specification: “a linear prediction module weighted from the training, that takes the weighted sum vector as input, applies the weight(s), and produces as output, which in one example indicates a gestational age in days”) is not sufficient in detail with respect to how the gestational age is estimated from the weighted sum vector and weights learned during training. See MPEP 2161.01.I. Further, pg. 16-24 of the original specification as a whole discloses the steps or flow charts for other computer implemented functional limitations recited in the independent claims, not how the estimate of the gestational age is estimated from the weighted sum vector and weights learned during training. See the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections below hereby being maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11-13, filed 10 Aug 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered but are persuasive in part.
Regarding the gestational age prediction module generating an estimate of the gestational age in independent claims 1, 13, and 24, Applicant argues, see pg. 11, that “Applicant hereby amends claims 1-11 and 13-24, as set forth above”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above for the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections, the original specification does not disclose in sufficient detail how the estimate of the gestational age is generated by the computer-implemented claims 1, 13, and 24. See the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections specifically to claims 1, 13, and 24 below hereby being maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections to claims 10-11, 17, and 22-23 as well as other 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections to claims 1, 13, and 24 of 08 Apr 2026 not specified above are withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 13, filed 10 Aug 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of 08 Apr 2026 are withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 and 13-24 are currently under examination. No claim has been cancelled, added, nor withdrawn since the Non-Final Office Action of 08 Apr 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13, and 24 are objected to because of the following informality:
“weights and combines” should read “weighs and combines”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
See the Claim Interpretation in the Non-Final Office Action of 08 Apr 2026 that is hereby being maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-11 and 13-24 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “providing the weighted sum vector as input to a gestational age prediction module of the trained machine learning model, which includes a linear layer that generates, from the weighted sum vector and weights learned during training, a linear combination of elements of the weighted sum vector, wherein the linear combination of the elements comprises an estimate of the gestational age of the human fetus”. As previously noted in the Claim Interpretation of 08 Apr 2026, a review of the original specification of the instant application does not disclose an algorithm for this computer-implemented limitation. In particular, pg. 19, lines 18-19 of the specification merely disclose “Finally, a fully connected layer (P) estimates the gestational age.”; and pg. 25, line 33 – pg. 26, line 6 merely disclose “the gestational age production module comprises a linear prediction module weighted from the training, that takes the weighted sum vector as input, applies the weight(s), and produces an output, which in one example, indicates a gestational age in days.” These are not sufficient detail disclosing an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function of the “gestational age prediction module”. See MPEP 2161.01.I. Accordingly, one skilled in the art would not know the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) for performing the claimed function of the” gestational age prediction module” in view of the specification of the instant application. Claims 2-11 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the gestational age prediction module including a linear layer for generating, from the weighted sum vector and weights learned during training, a linear combination of elements of the weighted sum vector, wherein the linear combination of the elements comprises an estimate of the gestational age of the human fetus”. As previously noted in the Claim Interpretation of 08 Apr 2026, a review of the original specification of the instant application does not disclose an algorithm for this computer-implemented limitation. In particular, pg. 19, lines 18-19 of the specification merely disclose “Finally, a fully connected layer (P) estimates the gestational age.”; and pg. 25, line 33 – pg. 26, line 6 merely disclose “the gestational age production module comprises a linear prediction module weighted from the training, that takes the weighted sum vector as input, applies the weight(s), and produces an output, which in one example, indicates a gestational age in days.” These are not sufficient detail disclosing an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function of the “gestational age prediction module”. See MPEP 2161.01.I.”. Accordingly, one skilled in the art would not know the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) for performing the claimed function of the ”gestational age prediction module” in view of the specification of the instant application. Claims 14-23 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 13.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “providing the weighted sum vector as input to a gestational age prediction module of the trained machine learning model, which includes a linear layer that generates, from the weighted sum vector and weights learned during training, a linear combination of elements of the weighted sum vector, wherein the linear combination of the elements comprises an estimate of a gestational age of the human fetus”. As previously noted in the Claim Interpretation of 08 Apr 2026, a review of the original specification of the instant application does not disclose an algorithm for this computer-implemented limitation. In particular, pg. 19, lines 18-19 of the specification merely disclose “Finally, a fully connected layer (P) estimates the gestational age.”; and pg. 25, line 33 – pg. 26, line 6 merely disclose “the gestational age production module comprises a linear prediction module weighted from the training, that takes the weighted sum vector as input, applies the weight(s), and produces an output, which in one example, indicates a gestational age in days.” These are not sufficient detail disclosing an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function of the “gestational age prediction module”. See MPEP 2161.01.I. Accordingly, one skilled in the art would not know the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) for performing the claimed function of the ”gestational age prediction module” in view of the specification of the instant application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-11 and 13-24 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 “when the at least one feature vector comprises a plurality of feature vectors, weights and combines the feature vectors”. The antecedent basis for “the feature vectors” in the limitation is unclear. In particular, it is unclear whether “the feature vectors” is referring to all or some of “a plurality of feature vectors” recited in claim 1 or otherwise. Claims 2-11 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 1. For the purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “when the at least one feature vector comprises a plurality of feature vectors, weighs and combines the plurality of feature vectors”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “providing the weighted sum vector as input to a gestational age prediction module of the trained machine learning model, which includes a linear layer that generates, from the weighted sum vector and weights learned during training, a linear combination of elements of the weighted sum vector, wherein the linear combination of the elements comprises an estimate of the gestational age of the human fetus”. As noted above in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, a review of the specification of the instant application does not disclose an algorithm for this computer-implemented limitation. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear in view of this computer-implemented limitation. Claims 2-11 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “when the at least one feature vector comprises a plurality of feature vectors, weights and combines the feature vectors”. The antecedent basis for “the feature vectors” in the limitation is unclear. In particular, it is unclear whether “the feature vectors” is referring to all or some of “a plurality of feature vectors” recited in claim 13 or otherwise. Claims 14-23 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 13. For the purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “when the at least one feature vector comprises a plurality of feature vectors, weighs and combines the plurality of feature vectors”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the gestational age prediction module including a linear layer for generating, from the weighted sum vector and weights learned during training, a linear combination of elements of the weighted sum vector, wherein the linear combination of the elements comprises an estimate of the gestational age of the human fetus”. As noted above in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, a review of the specification of the instant application does not disclose an algorithm for this computer-implemented limitation. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear in view of this computer-implemented limitation. Claims 14-23 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 13.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “when the at least one feature vector comprises a plurality of feature vectors, weights and combines the feature vectors”. The antecedent basis for “the feature vectors” in the limitation is unclear. In particular, it is unclear whether “the feature vectors” is referring to all or some of “a plurality of feature vectors” recited in claim 24 or otherwise. For the purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “when the at least one feature vector comprises a plurality of feature vectors, weighs and combines the plurality of feature vectors”.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “providing the weighted sum vector as input to a gestational age prediction module of the trained machine learning model, which includes a linear layer that generates, from the weighted sum vector and weights learned during training, a linear combination of elements of the weighted sum vector, wherein the linear combination of the elements comprises an estimate of a gestational age of the human fetus”. As noted above in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, a review of the specification of the instant application does not disclose an algorithm for this computer-implemented limitation. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear in view of this computer-implemented limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 13-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action, including being consistent with the Claim Interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) previously noted in the Non-Final Office Action of 08 Apr 2026.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Younhee Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-7013. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/Y.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
08/23/26
Prosecution Insights