`
`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
`
`