`Office Action mailed March 14, 2019
`Response to Office Action filed April 30, 2019
`
`SUlVflVIARY OF THE INTERVIEW
`
`Applicant is appreciative of Examiner Jonathan Cwern for extending the courtesy of an
`
`examiner interview to Applicant’s representatives, Ali Alemozafar, Bruce Kisliuk, and Daniel
`
`Kennedy, on April 15, 2019. During the interview, amendments and arguments consistent with
`
`those detailed herein were discussed.
`
`Applicant acknowledges the Applicant-Initiated Interview Summary mailed by the Office
`
`on April 19, 2019 (“the Summary”). In the Summary, the Office indicated that “the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of ‘predicted values’ includes the values determined by Mazer through
`
`obtaining data of the brain from the patient.” Although Applicant does not concede that the
`
`values determined in US. Patent Publication No. 2015/0073258 to Mazer et a1 (hereinafter
`
`“Mazer”) would fall within the scope of the term “predicted values”, Applicant is appreciative of
`
`the Office for indicating that amending claim 1 to recite “which one or more microstructural
`
`models are not generated from the MRI data” could further clarify certain differences between
`
`the claimed subject matter and the cited art.
`
`10708196_1.docx
`
`-7-
`
`WSGR Docket No. 53242-701301
`
`