CTNF 18/833,074 CTNF 70771 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 2, 5-9, 11, 12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda WO 2021/222529 . As for claims 1, 11 and 17, Okuda discloses a computer-implemented method to determine an increased likelihood of a neurological disorder based on a dorsal surface texture of a medulla oblongata (paragraphs 47+), the computer- implemented method comprising: selecting, using a computational topography software, a region of interest (ROI) within a diameter ring at a lower dorsal posterior medulla encompassing a region of a clava (paragraphs 51-52); analyzing, using the computational topography software, surface complexity of the ROI using a metric maximum curvature analysis that provides a local maximum curvature on discretized triangular mesh surface representations (paragraphs 48-49); and determining between introverted triangles and extroverted triangles and calculating a first number of the introverted triangles and a second number of the extroverted triangles in the ROI (paragraphs 46 and 49). While the Okuda teaches summing volumes of the triangles, it fails to specifically mention calculating a number of triangles, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to count the number of types triangles since it is a by product of summing the triangles for a volume calculation. As for claims 2, 12 and 18 Okuda teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determining between the introverted triangles and the extroverted triangles includes assigning a curvature value to each triangle in a context of neighboring triangles, wherein negative triangle values indicated a more introverted surface and positive values indicated a more extroverted surface (paragraph 49). As for claims 5 and 15 Okuda teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: computing, using the computational topography software, a curative measure for triangles within the ROI using a least-square fitting technique encompassing computational measure at each triangle node to unify triangle size (paragraphs 49 and 50). As for claims 6 and 16, Okuda teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: using non-registered or registered 3D T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences for tracking position and shape changes of structures; and identifying the ROI from a superior colliculus of a midbrain to a caudal end of the medulla oblongata from non-contrast-enhanced 3D isotropic T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences (paragraph 40). As for claim 7 and 18 Okuda teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: comparing a number of triangles with negative values within ROIs of a plurality of patients, wherein a higher number of triangles with negative values informed on more introverted features within the region of interest. (paragraph 49) As for claim 8 and 19, Okuda teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: comparing a number of triangles with negative values between longitudinal MRI data of a patient; and determining the patient having an insignificant rate of change of a number of introverted triangles or extroverted triangles has an increased risk of NMOSD and decreased risk of MS. (paragraph 53) As for claims 9 and 20, Okuda teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: comparing a number of triangles with negative values between longitudinal MRI data of a patient; and determining the patient having a rate of increase in a number of introverted triangles of greater than 10 triangles per year or a rate of decrease in a number of extroverted triangles of greater than 10 triangles per year has an increased risk of MS and a decreased risk of NMOSD. (paragraph 53) While the specific number of 10 triangles is noted in the claim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to recognize the number of triangles need to consider the rate of increase based clinical data supplied . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 3, 4, 10 and 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7331. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30 to 4 pm alternate Fridays off. 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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at 571-272-1617. 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. /CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482 Application/Control Number: 18/833,074 Page 2 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 18/833,074 Page 3 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 18/833,074 Page 4 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 18/833,074 Page 5 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 18/833,074 Page 6 Art Unit: 2482
Prosecution Insights