U.S. Serial No. 15/987,794
`Office Action mailed March 14, 2019
`Response to Office Action filed April 30, 2019
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-1 1, 13, 15, 17, and 20-36 were pending prior to entry ofthe
`
`abovementioned amendments. Claim 1 has been amended. New claim 42 has been added. No
`
`new matter is added by these amendments. Accordingly, upon entry, claims 1, 3, 4, 6-1 1, 13, 15,
`
`17, 20-36, and 42 will be pending.
`
`Reconsideration and allowance of this application is respectfully requested in light of the
`
`abovementioned amendments and the following remarks.
`
`Claim amendments
`
`Claim 1 has been amended to clarify the claimed subject matter. These amendments are
`
`fully supported by the application as originally filed, US. Patent Application No. 15/987,794,
`
`now US. Patent Publication No. 2018/0268942 (“the Application”) at, for example, paragraphs
`
`[0122], [01541—[0155], [0167], and FIG. 18.
`
`New claim 42 is fully supported by the Application at, for example, paragraphs [0122]
`
`and [01541—[0155].
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13, 15, 17, and 20-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over US.
`
`Patent Publication No. 2016/023 9969 to Davatzikos et al. (hereinafter “Davatzikos”) in View of
`
`US. Patent Publication No. 2015/0073258 to Mazer et al. (hereinafter “Mazer”).
`
`Without conceding in the basis of rejection, and solely to expedite the prosecution of this
`
`application, Applicant has amended claim 1 to clarify certain differences between the claimed
`
`subject matter and the cited art. Applicant submits that claim 1 is not obvious over the asserted
`
`combination of Davatzikos and Mazer because these references, alone or in combination, do not
`
`meet all of the elements of this claim.
`
`For example, nothing in Davatzikos or Mazer teaches or discloses “(b) for the voxel of
`
`the plurality of voxels, using one or more computer processors to process the one or more
`
`measured MRI parameters with one or more simulated MRI parameters for the voxel, the one or
`
`more simulated MRI parameters being generated from one or more microstructural models at the
`
`voxel, wherein the one or more microstructural models comprise predicted values of at least one
`
`parameter from at least one machine learning procedure, wherein the at least one parameter is
`
`10708196_1.docx
`
`-8-
`
`WSGR Docket No. 53242-701301
`
`

`

`U.S. Serial No. 15/987,794
`Office Action mailed March 14, 2019
`Response to Office Action filed April 30, 2019
`
`selected from the group consisting of: cell density, cell shape, cell geometry, cell size, cell
`
`distribution, intercellular spacing, extracellular matrix composition, extracellular matrix
`
`
`distribution, extracellular matrix homogeneity, and interstitial tortuosity within the voxel, which
`
`one or more microstructural models are not generated from the MRI data,” as recited in
`
`amended claim 1.
`
`On the contrary, Mazer discloses that the “non-water tissue volume and volume of
`
`interacting protons are determined to quantify the volume and exposed surface area of cell
`
`membranes and macromolecules in the soft tissue and compared to soft tissue from a control
`
`subject to evaluate for the presence of abnormalities or degenerative processes.” See Mazer at
`
`[0009]. Mazer further discloses that the “quantitative VIP and TV parameters were measured
`
`from Spoiled gradient recalled echo (SPGR) images acquired with different flip angles...” and
`
`that the “non-water tissue volume (TV) and volume of interacting protons (VIP) are estimated by
`
`combining two fundamental magnetic resonance maps: T1 and proton density.” See Mazer at
`
`[0093] and [0135], respectively. Hence, Mazer uses T1 and proton density maps obtained from
`
`SPGR images (generated from MRI) to generate microstructural models.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the § 103 rejection of claim 1 be
`
`withdrawn.
`
`Claims 3-4, 6-1 1, 13, 15, 17, and 20-36 depend from and include all of the elements of
`
`claim 1, and recite additional elements of particular advantage and utility. The asserted
`
`combination of Davatzikos and Mazer does not meet all of the elements of claim 1, much less the
`
`combination of elements of claims 3-4, 6-11, 13, 15, 17, and 20-36. Accordingly, Applicant
`
`respectfully requests that the § 103 rejections of claims 3-4, 6-1 1, 13, 15, 17, and 20-36 also be
`
`withdrawn.
`
`>l<>l<>l<
`
`It shall be understood herein that any instance in which Applicant has addressed certain
`
`comments of the Office shall not be construed as a concession to other comments or arguments
`
`advanced by the Office. Any circumstance in which Applicant has amended or canceled a claim
`
`also does not necessarily mean that Applicant concedes to the arguments or positions advanced
`
`by the Office with respect to that claim or other claims pending herein.
`
`10708196_1.docx
`
`-9-
`
`WSGR Docket No. 53242-701301
`
`

`

`U.S. Serial No. 15/987,794
`Office Action mailed March 14, 2019
`Response to Office Action filed April 30, 2019
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Applicant submits that this paper fully addresses the issues presented in the Final Offlce
`
`Action mailed March 14, 2019 (the “Office Action”). In view of the amendments and remarks
`
`above, favorable reconsideration of the application is respectfully requested and Applicant
`
`respectfully requests the Examiner to move this application to issuance. Should the Examiner
`
`have any questions, the Examiner is encouraged to contact the undersigned.
`
`The Commissioner is authorized to charge any additional fees which may be required,
`
`including petition fees and extension of time fees, to Deposit Account No. 23-2415 (Docket No.
`
`53242-701301).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`
`By: /Daniel Kennedy/
`Daniel J. Kennedy, PhD.
`Reg. No. 76,220
`Ali R. Alemozafar, Ph.D., Esq.
`Reg. No. 68,180
`
`Dated: April 30, 2019
`
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493 -93 00
`Customer No. 21971
`
`10708196_1.docx
`
`-lO-
`
`WSGR Docket No. 53242-701301
`
`