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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the claimed elements are not clearly described. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 10 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 2-9, and 11-18 are rejected based on their dependency.
The following claim elements “Learning to Rank” is not clearly defined in the specification to enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the claimed invention.
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 1-18 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.
The claims 1-18 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The following elements in claims 1 and 10 lack antecedent basis;
“the first lumbar vertebra,” “the fourth lumbar vertebra,” “the abdominal aorta calcification scores” in step S1.
In step S2, “lateral abdominal X-ray images with known calcification scores” is an unlinked set that lacks definite reference back to step s1. Should be “the plurality of lateral abdominal X-ray images.”
in step S4 ,“the bilateral midpoints”, “the regional image blocks”
In step S5, “each lumbar abdominal aorta”, “the constraints”, “ACC”
The following claims 1 and 10 elements are vague and indefinite;
In steps S1-S5, preparing data and training a model is recited, while step S6 recites deploying/using a model without a continuous data sequence or target image, therefore it is not clear if the models are related.
In step S4, “equidistantly extending the distance between the bilateral midpoints” is geometrically vague and unclear. Extending a distance is conceptually unclear and fails to define the dimensional direction such as along a defined axis.
In step S5, the capitalized generic phrase “Learning to Rank” is informal and not clearly defined as a technical constraint in the specification.
In step S6, “performing abdominal aortic calcification scoring…” fails to cite what is being scored and therefore the operational step lacks an input subject or data.
In step S6, “a trained ACC automatic scoring network” is vague and indefinite. In Step S5, “an ACC automatic scoring network” is trained, therefore it ambiguous whether S6 uses the network trained in S5 or an arbitrary pre-existing network.
Claims 2 and 11
The following lack antecedent basis,
“the same lateral state”, “the size”
Claims 3 and 12
The following lack antecedent basis;
“the training and validation”, “the results”
Claims 4 and 13
The following lack antecedent basis;
“target center point”, “the value”
Claims 5 and 14
The following lack antecedent basis;
“the predicted value”, “the label”
Claims 6 and 15
The following lack antecedent basis;
“the size”, “center point labels”, “the model”
Claims 8 and 17
The following lack antecedent basis;
“the left upper endpoint”, “the right upper endpoint”, “the next adjacent vertebra”, “the center point”, “the two edge points”, “the same side”
Claims 9 and 18
The following lack antecedent basis;
“the first lumbar vertebra”, “the second lumbar vertebra”, “the third lumbar vertebra”, “the fourth lumbar vertebra”, “the connecting line”, “the left upper endpoint”, “the right upper endpoint”, “the extension”, “the distance”, “the extension”, “the reverse bow direction”, “the area”, “the median connecting line”, “the adjacent median connecting line”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights