`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMlVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`15/987,794
`
`05/23/2018
`
`Padideh KAMALl-ZARE
`
`53242-701.301
`
`7219
`
`long/2018 —WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI «
`7590
`21971
`650 PAGE MILL ROAD
`HO, DON N
`PALO ALTO, CA 94304-1050
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3793
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`10/18/2018
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patentdocket @ wsgr.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`
`15/987,794
`KAMALl-ZARE ET AL.
`_
`AIA (First Inventor
`to File) Status
`Yes
`
`Art Unit
`
`3793
`
`Page
`
`1 of 2
`
`
`
`_
`_
`_
`_
`Applicant-Initiated Interwew Summary
`
`Examiner
`
`Don N. Ho
`
`All participants (applicant, applicant’s representative, PTO personnel):
`
`1.
`
`3.
`
`Don N. Ho (Examiner); WebEx/Video Conference
`
`2.
`
`Daniel Kennedy (Attorney of Record); WebEx/Video
`Conference
`
`Ali Alemozafar (Attorney of Record); WebEx/Video
`Conference
`
`Date of Interview: 11 October2018
`
`Claim(s) discussed:
`
`1
`
`Identification of prior art discussed: Davatzikos et al (US 20160239969 A1)
`
`Amendment Proposed: Applicant proposed amendments over WebEx conference.
`
`Brief Description of main topic of discussion: Applicant requested clarification of the 102 rejection over Davatzikos, FIG. 3,
`claim language directed to simulated MRl parameters gnereated from microstructural models, and proposed amendments over
`WebEx.
`
`Issues Discussed:
`
`Proposed Amendments:
`Applicant proposed amendments during WebEx conference. Applicant suggested including claim language
`directed to the microstructural model and how the microstructural model is simulated within the voxel. Examiner
`
`stated that amendments directed to how the microstructural model is simulated within the voxel would appear to
`overcome the 102 rejection over Davatzikos, but more time would be required for further consideration and search.
`
`ltem(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102:
`Applicant requested clarification of the 102 rejection of claim 1 directed to the claim language of "one or more
`simulated MRI parameters being generated from one or more microstructural models at the voxel".
`Examiner interpreted the normative images of Davatzikos to be one or more simulated MRI parameter parameter
`generated from one or more microstructural models at the voxel, see paragraph 32. Further, classifying is done at
`each voxel based on the normative images, see paragraph 39.
`
`Attachment(s): Agenda
`/M|CHAEL CAREY/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 3793
`
`/Don N. Ho/
`
`

`

`Application No.
`
`15/987,794
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`Applicant recordation instructions: The formal written reply to the last Office action must include the substance of the interview. (See MPEP
`section 713.04). If a reply to the last Office action has already been filed, applicant is given a non-extendable time limit of the longer of one month or
`thirty days from this interview date, or the mailing date of this interview summary form, whichever is later, to file a statement of the substance of the
`interview.
`
`Examiner recordation instructions: Examiners must summarize the substance of any interview of record. A complete and proper recordation of the
`substance of an interview should include the items listed in MPEP 713.04 for complete and proper recordation including the identification of the
`general thrust of each argument or issue discussed, a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed regarding patentability and the
`general results or outcome of the interview, to include an indication as to whether or not agreement was reached on the issues raised.
`
`Applicant is reminded that a complete written statement as to the substance of the interview must be made of record in the
`application file. It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide the written statement, unless the interview was initiated by the
`Examiner and the Examiner has indicated that a written summary will be provided. See MPEP 713.04
`
`
`
`Please further see:
`
`MPEP 713.04
`Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1.133 Interviews, paragraph (b)
`37 CFR § 1.2 Business to be transacted in writing
`
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PTOL-413/413b (Rev. 01/01/2015)
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Paper No. 20181011
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket