CTNF 19/187,757 CTNF 96917 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. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. US 12303246 B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the prior patent teaches all the limitations present in the pending application and the pending application just presents a broader scope of invention compared to the prior patent . Regarding claim 1, the prior patent teaches a registration method that aligns a human brain sensory map of an individual to a predefined template ([claim 1] a sensory mapping method for a guman brain; [0008] a method that aligns a human brain sensory map of an individual to a predefined template) wherein the method comprises registering a plurality of sensory maps, each sensory map corresponding to a human brain of a different individual ([claim 4] registering a plurality of sensory maps across a plurality of subjects) and analyzing the plurality of sensory maps in a common space ([abst] analyzing the maps in the common space). Regarding claim 2, the prior patent teaches the registering is diffeomorphic ([claim 5] the registering is diffeomorphic) Regarding claim 3, the prior patent teaches applying a Beltrami coefficient to quantify diffeomorphism; and modeling the registering in an optimization framework ([claim 1] a Linear Beltrami Solver (LBS), a sensory map for each of the plurality of cortical areas; and repeating the diffeomorphic smoothing algorithm until a maximum absolute value of a Beltrami coefficient for the retinotopic coordinates of each of the plurality of cortical areas is less than one). Regarding claim 4, the prior patent teaches minimizing a registration cost corresponding to the predefined template ([0132] the registration cost, overall visual error, is decreased during the process. The decreased overall visual error means the template is improved for human retinotopic maps) Regarding claim 5, the prior patent teaches a composite of a first diffeomorphic registration and a second diffeomorphic registration ([0053] diffeomorphic registration of two surfaces) Regarding claim 6, the prior patent teaches generating the plurality of sensory maps ([claim 4] a plurality of sensory maps across a plurality of subjects) Regarding claim 7, the prior patent teaches computing a parametric coordinate corresponding to a plurality of cortical areas for each sensory map of the plurality of sensory maps ([claim 1] computing a parametric coordinate for each of the plurality of cortical areas) Regarding claim 8, the prior patent teaches performing Laplacian smoothing on each parametric coordinate to form a smoothed retinotopic coordinate for each of the plurality of cortical areas ([claim 1] performing Laplacian smoothing on the parametric coordinate for each of the plurality of cortical areas to form a smoothed retinotopic coordinate for each of the plurality of cortical areas) Regarding claim 9, the prior patent teaches chopping each smoothed retinotopic coordinate for each of the plurality of cortical areas and computing, by a Linear Beltrami Solver (LBS), the sensory maps ([claim 1] computing, by a Linear Beltrami Solver (LBS), a sensory map for each of the plurality of cortical areas). Regarding claim 10, the prior patent teaches repeating the diffeomorphic smoothing algorithm until a maximum absolute value of a Beltrami coefficient for the retinotopic coordinates of each of the plurality of cortical areas is less than one ([claim 1] generating a diffeomorphic sensory map that corresponds to the sensory map where the maximum absolute value of the Beltrami coefficient for the retinotopic coordinates of each of the plurality of cortical areas is less than one) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 1 is 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. Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what the limitation reading ‘a common space’ is referring to. This aspect of the invention is mentioned in the specification in paragraphs [0004], [0036], [0184], and fig. 19, yet none of these sections clarify the nature of the space that is being claimed. For the purposes of this office action any analysis of a plurality of sensory maps are considered analogous to the limitation in question. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Ta (US 20190192039 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Ta teaches a registration method that aligns a human brain sensory map of an individual to a predefined template ([0020] FIG. 1. Illustrates an overall pipeline for sensory mapping to cortical surface and Beltrami coefficient map visualization for visual cortical areas, in accordance with some embodiments) registering a plurality of sensory maps, each sensory map corresponding to a human brain of a different individual ([0050] In step 145 the Beltrami coefficient map is analyzed by directly comparing its value everywhere or its statistical distribution over the visual field disk domain with other individual's Beltrami coefficient map) and analyzing the plurality of sensory maps in a common space ([0050] In step 145 the Beltrami coefficient map is analyzed by directly comparing its value everywhere or its statistical distribution over the visual field disk domain with other individual's Beltrami coefficient map). Regarding claim 4, Ta teaches minimizing a registration cost corresponding to the predefined template ([0054] data is aggregated across subjects and registered to a template before it is fitted with some mathematical function that best describes the resulting data. Although aggregation can remove noise in the data, it can also cause information loss. Therefore, in this disclosure, the data is not aggregated. Instead, the data points are clustered to determine which group of functional data points in the primary visual cortex best represents the traveling wave pattern. A model is then fitted to the clusters that best describes the traveling wave data. Missing data is then filled in and inconsistent data are revised to form a more complete and consistent dataset for analysis) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 2, 3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krebs (US 20190205766 A1) . Regarding claim 2, Ta fails to teach the registering is diffeomorphic. However, Krebs teaches wherein the registering is diffeomorphic ([0017] Robust deep diffeomorphic registration is provided) Ta and Krebs are considered analogous because they both involve the analysis of medical magnetic resonance (MR) images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the registration of the images in a diffeomorphic manner in order to provide for more regularized and realistic deformation (Krebs [0005]). Regarding claim 3, Ta teaches applying a Beltrami coefficient ([0012] A Beltrami coefficient map is generated based on the model of sensory data) And modeling the registering in an optimization framework ([0012] based on the model of sensory data; [0040] curve is fitted with a piecewise polynomial B-spline function with an adjustable curve smoothness parameter to allow manual control in refining the curve to optimally fit the data while maintaining curve convexity. Finally, a Beltrami coefficient map is obtained) Ta fails to teach diffeomorphism. However, Krebs teaches diffeomorphism ([0017] Robust deep diffeomorphic registration is provided) Ta and Krebs are considered analogous because they both involve the analysis of medical magnetic resonance (MR) images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the registration of the images in a diffeomorphic manner in order to provide for more regularized and realistic deformation (Krebs [0005]). Regarding claim 5, Ta fails to teach a composite of a first diffeomorphic registration and a second diffeomorphic registration. However, Krebs teaches a composite of a first diffeomorphic registration and a second diffeomorphic registration ([0006] First and second sets of scan data representing a patient are acquired. Displacements of the registration of the scan data of the first set with the scan data of the second set are determined by input of the first and second sets of the scan data to a deep machine-learned network having a diffeomorphic layer such that the displacements output by the deep machine-learned network are diffeomorphic. An image of the patient is generated from the displacements). Ta and Krebs are considered analogous because they both involve the analysis of medical magnetic resonance (MR) images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the registration of a first and second set of images in a diffeomorphic manner in order to provide for more regularized and realistic deformation (Krebs [0005]). Regarding claim 6, Ta teaches generating the plurality of sensory maps ([0016] maps between different cortical areas; [0017] generates a new Beltrami coefficient map comprising a Beltrami coefficient for each of a plurality of locations in the visual field disk space) Regarding claim 7, Ta teaches computing a parametric coordinate corresponding to a plurality of cortical areas for each sensory map of the plurality of sensory maps ([0017] generates a new Beltrami coefficient map comprising a Beltrami coefficient for each of a plurality of locations in the visual field disk space; ([0012] A spherical conformal mapping process is applied to flatten cortical surfaces in the cortical map to a unit disk. Noise is removed in the cortical map. An approximate model of the sensory data is generated. A Beltrami coefficient map is generated based on the model of sensory data. A quasiconformal map is reconstructed based on the Beltrami coefficient map) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ta in view of Krebs as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Zeng (US 20160350979 A1) . Regarding claim 8, Ta teaches retinotopic coordinates ([0009] retinotopic maps) Ta as modified fails to teach Laplacian smoothing on each parametric coordinate to form a smoothed coordinate for each of the plurality of cortical areas. However, Zeng teaches Laplacian smoothing on each parametric coordinate to form a smoothed retinotopic coordinate for each of the plurality of cortical areas ([0124] an algorithm with landmark curve constraints can include a computation that is based on the optimization of constrained harmonic energy to smooth out distortion as much as possible; [0049] Colon conformal flattening methods include Laplace-Beltrami operator) Ta as modified and Zeng are considered analogous because both disclose methods of conforming 3-dimensional anatomical topography to a 2-dimensional surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the pending application to use Laplacian smoothing in order to use one or more harmonic maps (Zeng [0049]). Regarding claim 9, Ta teaches retinotopic coordinates ([0009] retinotopic maps) Ta as modified fails to teach chopping each smoothed coordinate for each of the plurality of cortical areas and computing, by a Linear Beltrami Solver (LBS), the sensory maps. However, Zeng teaches chopping each smoothed retinotopic coordinate for each of the plurality of cortical areas and computing, by a Linear Beltrami Solver (LBS), the sensory maps ([0049] Colon conformal flattening methods include Laplace-Beltrami operator) Ta as modified and Zeng are considered analogous because both disclose methods of conforming 3-dimensional anatomical topography to a 2-dimensional surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the pending application to use Laplacian smoothing in order to use one or more harmonic maps (Zeng [0049]). Regarding claim 10, Ta teaches repeating the algorithm until a maximum absolute value of a Beltrami coefficient for the retinotopic coordinates of each of the plurality of cortical areas is less than one ([0009] retinotopic maps; [0061] The Beltrami coefficient for every data point on the primary visual cortex was directly computed and the cumulative distribution function (CDF) for the dilation values was computed. The dilation K is related to the Beltrami coefficient by the following formula K=(1+|μ|)/(1−|μ|), where μ is the Beltrami coefficient. The set of BC for every point on the discrete surface forms a ‘BC Map’ that fully determines a QC surface mapping. See FIG. 11 that illustrates an example Beltrami map and determination of dilation K once the Beltrami coefficient approaches a maximum value less than one, the sign of the dilation value K will flip so thus it would be obvious this would be a point where the algorithm stops ). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL VICTOR POPESCU whose telephone number is (571)272-7065. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM. 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, Anne Kozak can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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. /GABRIEL VICTOR POPESCU/Examiner, Art Unit 3797 /SERKAN AKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/187,757 Page 2 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/187,757 Page 3 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/187,757 Page 4 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/187,757 Page 5 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/187,757 Page 6 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/187,757 Page 7 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/187,757 Page 8 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/187,757 Page 9 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/187,757 Page 10 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/187,757 Page 11 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/187,757 Page 12 Art Unit: 3797
Prosecution Insights