DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed March 5th, 2026 Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-15 are pending, of which claims 1, 3-4, and 6-15 are currently rejected.
Response to Arguments
The claims filed March 5th 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-15 remain pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 17th, 2025 has been entered.
35 USC § 101 Rejections
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-15 are now rejected under 35 USC § 101 in response to amendment of claims.
35 USC § 112(b) Rejections
New 112(b) rejections have been made as necessitated by amendments. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previously cited art have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that Alexandru et al. (8452828) as placed in the IDS filed on 07/06/2022 (hereinafter “Alexandru”) does not teach claim 15, specifically because Equation 1 (Alexandru: Col. 4) represents computation of generic FIR filter outputs and thus Alexandru does not teach the FIR filter or the first integral value as recited (Applicant Remarks Pg. 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Equation (1) is the convolution sum being carried out by the device of Alexandru and provides the output o[n] as evidenced by Col. 4 Lines 30-59. Therefore, Alexandru does in fact teach claim 15.
Applicant additionally alleges that Equation 5 of Alexandru (Alexandru: Col. 7) teaches computing a convolutional sum of multiple rectangular responses rather than a second integral value as claimed in Claim 15 and thus does not teach Claim 15 with regards to the second integral value. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in Equation 5, in order for the second integral value to be calculated, the second sample value (second integral as seen in Fig. 1) is taken, and the first sample (first integral value) s[n] is subtracted from it in order to subtract a value overlapping with the first input sequence, after which a value that is not in the first input sequence is added s[n+D] in order to fully attain the second integral value. Therefore, Alexandru does in fact teach the computation of the second integral value as claimed and thus claim 15.
Applicant alleges that Takeshima in view of Alexandru does not teach Claim 1 and therefore dependent claims because neither Takeshima nor Alexandru teach the functionality of the processing circuitry for the same reasons discussed with respect to Claim 1 (Applicant Remarks: Pg. 15). Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the same reason that Alexandru does in fact teach Claim 15, Takeshima in view of Alexandru also does in fact teach Claim 1.
See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-15 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the FIR filter” on line 5. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Because claims 3-4, and 6-14 depend upon claim 1, claims 3-4, and 6-14 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the FIR filter” on line 4. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim language recites computing a first and second integral values based on a coefficient sequence. Below are the limitations of claim 1 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts:
Compute a first integral value corresponding to an element in a coefficient sequence of a first input sequence by performing digital finite impulse response (FIR) filtering of the first input sequence, wherein the FIR filter is expressed by:
g
t
=
∑
m
c
m
∑
n
∈
D
m
f
(
t
-
n
)
Where:
g(t) represents an output signal from the FIR filter,
Dm represent a filter index set, wherein filter index sets correspond to partial filter coefficient sequences extracted from a total filter coefficient sequence;
m is an index of a filter index set;
n is the filter index;
cm is a representative coefficient wherein the representative coefficient represents a plurality of filter coefficients corresponding to the filter index set Dm;
f(t-n) corresponds to the first input sequence input to the FIR filter; and
the first integral value for each filter index set m is defined by
I
m
=
∑
n
∈
D
m
f
t
-
n
where Im(t) is the first integral value for each filter index set m;
compute a second integral value corresponding to the element in a coefficient sequence of a second input sequence next to the first input sequence; and
compute an output signal value corresponding to the second input sequence based on the second integral value for each filter index set m and the coefficient sequence of the second input sequence,
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to add a value not overlapping the first input sequence in the second input sequence to the first integral value,
and subtract a value not overlapping the second input sequence in the first input sequence from the first integral value for the element,
to thereby compute the second integral value by using the equation:
Im(t+1) = Im(t)+f(t + 1 – max Dm) – f(t – min Dm)
wherein Im(t + 1) is the second integral value, f(t+1-max Dm) is the second input sequence shifted by max Dm,
which is the maximum filter index,
and f(t-min Dm) is the first input sequence shifted by Dm, which is the minimum filter index.
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, these are the additional elements recited in claim 1:
A signal processing apparatus, comprising:
Processing circuitry
The FIR filter
These elements are generic computer components and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer, and merely generally link to a particular technological environment. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements claimed that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As explained above, the additional elements at best are the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 3, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Below are the limitations of claim 3 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts:
to compute a third integral value corresponding to the element in a coefficient sequence of a third input sequence next to the second input sequence, and
add a value not overlapping the second input sequence in the third input sequence to the second integral value and subtract a value not overlapping the third input sequence in the second input sequence from the second integral for the element, to thereby compute the third integral value by using:
Im(t+2) = Im(t+1)+f(t + 2 – max Dm) – f(t +1 – min Dm)
wherein Im(t+2) is the third integral value, f(t+1-max Dm) is the third input sequence shifted by max Dm, the f(t+1-min Dm) is the second input sequence shifted by min Dm, and
compute the output signal value corresponding to the third input sequence based on the third integral value and the coefficient sequence of the third input sequence.
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, these are no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1.
The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 4, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Below are the limitations of claim 4 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts:
Wherein each coefficient sequence corresponds to a sequence of a series of amplification factors corresponding to an input sequence of the first and second input sequences.
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, these are no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1.
The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 6, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Below are the limitations of claim 6 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts:
wherein the element is the representative coefficient representing the plurality of filter coefficients included in a range defined by values of the filter coefficients, and
each coefficient sequence is a series of the representative coefficients.
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, these are no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1.
The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 7, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Below are the limitations of claim 7 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts:
wherein a number of bits in the filter coefficients, the representative coefficient, the first integral value, and the second integral value is larger than a number of bits of the first input sequence and the second input sequence.
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, these are no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 6.
The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 8, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Below are the limitations of claim 8 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts:
wherein a number of bits in the filter coefficients, the representative coefficient, the first integral value, and the second integral value is larger than 32.
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, these are no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 6.
The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 9, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Below are the limitations of claim 9 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts:
wherein the range is defined by the value sof the filter coefficients is set by comparing an arithmetic result using the filter coefficients with a threshold, or comparing the filter coefficients with a threshold.
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, these are no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 6.
The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 11, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Below are the limitations of claim 11 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts:
wherein the non-overlapping corresponds to a delay in the input sequence.
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, these are no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1.
The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 12, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Below are the limitations of claim 12 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts:
for distinguishing respective filter coefficients belonging to each of a plurality of ranges of an amplification factor for the first input sequence
in units of a set index for distinguishing a set of filter indices;
determine the range of the amplification factor of the filter coefficients determined to be included in the set of the filter indices based on the partial filter coefficient sequence corresponding to the set of filter indices; and
determine the representative coefficient representing the filter coefficients for each of the ranges of the amplification factor.
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements not reciting mathematical concepts are:
A memory
To store therein the partial filter coefficient sequences composed of the plurality of filter coefficients arrayed in order of filter indices
These elements are generic computer components and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These elements represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
There is an insignificant extra-solution activity that must be made of note here:
to store therein the partial filter coefficient sequences composed of the plurality of filter coefficients arrayed in order of filter indices
At Step 2B, there are no additional elements claimed that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As explained above, the additional elements at best are the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
In regards to the insignificant extra-solution activity found in this limitation “to store therein the partial filter coefficient sequences composed of the plurality of filter coefficients arrayed in order of filter indices”, this action describes mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, this limitation does not amount to significantly more.
The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 13, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Below are the limitations of claim 13 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts:
to compute an average of the filter coefficients for each of the ranges of the amplification factor, thereby determining the representative coefficient.
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, these are no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 12.
The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 14, at Step 1, the claim is directed to a statutory category of invention (machine).
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that the claim recites an abstract idea. Below are the limitations of claim 14 that recite an abstract idea under mathematical concepts:
wherein a number of bits in the filter coefficients and the representative coefficient is larger than 32.
All limitations as indicated describe “mathematical concepts”.
At Step 2A Prong 2, these are no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 12.
The claim is not eligible.
Claim 15 recites the method practiced by the apparatus of claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alexandru et al. (8452828) as placed in the IDS filed on 07/06/2022 (hereinafter “Alexandru”).
Regarding claim 15, Alexandru teaches:
A signal processing method comprising:
computing a first integral value (Col. 4 Eq. (1) O[n]; Col. 4 Lines 30-35) corresponding to an element in a coefficient sequence (Col. 4 Eq (1) hi as the element in a coefficient sequence of h1, h2, h3…) of a first input sequence (Col. 4 Eq (1) s[n] where 0 ≤ k ≤ M-1) by performing digital finite impulse response (FIR) filtering of the first input sequence, wherein the FIR filter is expressed by (Alexandru: Abstract the device is a FIR filter apparatus taking in an input signal and defining FIR filter coefficients in order to provide an output signal o[n] i.e., g(t) as described in Col. 4 Equation (1)):
g
t
=
∑
m
c
m
∑
n
∈
D
m
f
(
t
-
n
)
where:
g(t) represents an output signal from the FIR filter (Alexandru: Col. 4 Equation (1) o[n]),
Dm represents a filter index set, wherein filter index sets correspond to partial filter coefficient sequences extracted from a total filter coefficient sequence (Alexandru: Col. 4 Equation (1) filter index set M-1);
m is index of a filter index set (Alexandru: Col. 4 Equation (1) index of filter set M);
n the filter index set (Alexandru: Col. 4 Equation (1) filter index k);
Cm is a representative coefficient wherein the representative coefficient represents a plurality of filter coefficients corresponding to the filter index set Dm (Alexandru: Col. 4 Equation (1) representative coefficient h[k]);
f(t-n) corresponds to the first input sequence input to the FIR filter (Alexandru: Col. 4 Equation (1) first input sequence s[n-k]); and
the first integral value for each filter index set m is defined by
I
m
(
t
)
=
∑
n
∈
D
m
f
t
-
n
where Im(t) is the first integral value for each filter index set m (Alexandru: Col. 4 Equation (2) first integral value as represented by h[n]);
computing a second integral value corresponding to the element in a coefficient sequence of a second input sequence next to the first input sequence (Alexandru: Col. 7 Equation (5) second integral computed with respect to second input sequence n+D which is next to the first input sequence);
computing an output signal value corresponding to the second input sequence based on the second integral value for each filter index set m and the coefficient sequence of the second input sequence (Alexandru: Col. 7 Equation 5 output signal o[n+d+D] corresponding to second input sequence is calculated); and
adding a value not overlapping the first input sequence in a second input sequence (Col. 4 Eq (1) s[n+1] where 0 ≤ h ≤ M-1), which is next to the first input sequence, to the first integral value and subtracting a value not overlapping the second input sequence in the first input sequence from the first integral value for the element, thereby computing a second integral value (Col. 4 Eq (1) O[n+1], also Col. 7 Eq(5) O[n+d+D]) corresponding to the element in a coefficient sequence of the second input sequence (computation as shown in Col. 7 Eq. (5) and further explained in Col. 7 Lines 42-52) by using the equation:
Im(t+1) = Im(t)+f(t + 1 – max Dm) – f(t – min Dm)
(Alexandru Col. 7 Equation 5) wherein Im(t+1) is the second integral value (Alexandru: Col. 7 Equation (7) o[n+d+D]), f(t+1-max Dm) is the second input sequence shifted by max Dm, (Alexandru Col. 7 Equation (5) Im(t) = s[k] and f(t+1-max Dm)=s[n]) which is the maximum filter index, and f(t-min Dm) is the first input sequence shifted by min Dm, which is the minimum filter index (Alexandru: Col 7 Equation (5) f(t-min Dm)=s[n+D]; claim 1 samples for FIR filtering are time shifted with respect to ranges of samples and coefficients, allowing for non-overlapping values in computation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexandru further in view of Takeshima (US 2015/0369893) (hereinafter “Takeshima”).
Regarding claim 1, Takeshima teaches:
Takeshima teaches a magnetic resonance (MR) imaging apparatus (Takeshima: Fig. 1) having signal processing occurring at a controller (Takeshima: Fig. 1 Element 133; ¶ 0037 discusses the controller having its own memory and processing circuitry) that outputs a position in k-space after signal processing in order to correct a position in k-space of the magnetic resonance data generated (Takeshima: ¶ 0069 describes k-space shifting i.e., changing in position based on output received from controller Fig. 1 Element 133) by controlling an electric current (Takeshima: ¶ 0031 driving a power source i.e., an electric current) supplied to gradient coil (Fig. 1 Element 103).
While Takeshima teaches a controller carrying out signal processing for correcting the k-space position of the magnetic resonance data generated, Takeshima’s controller signal processing functionality is recited at a high-level of generality, and the specifics of said signal processing are not explicitly present in the reference (Takeshima: ¶ 0054 only mentions “some kind of processing” occurring on the k-space data to acquire the corrected k-space data).
However, Alexandru teaches:
compute a first integral value (Col. 4 Eq. (1) O[n]; Col. 4 Lines 30-35) corresponding to an element in a coefficient sequence (Col. 4 Eq (1) hi as the element in a coefficient sequence of h1, h2, h3…) of a first input sequence (Col. 4 Eq (1) s[n] where 0 ≤ k ≤ M-1) by performing digital finite impulse response (FIR) filtering of the first input sequence, wherein the FIR filter is expressed by (Alexandru: Abstract the device is a FIR filter apparatus taking in an input signal and defining FIR filter coefficients in order to provide an output signal o[n] i.e., g(t) as described in Col. 4 Equation (1)):
g
t
=
∑
m
c
m
∑
n
∈
D
m
f
(
t
-
n
)
where:
g(t) represents an output signal from the FIR filter (Alexandru: Col. 4 Equation (1) o[n]),
Dm represents a filter index set, wherein filter index sets correspond to partial filter coefficient sequences extracted from a total filter coefficient sequence (Alexandru: Col. 4 Equation (1) filter index set M-1);
m is index of a filter index set (Alexandru: Col. 4 Equation (1) index of filter set M);
n the filter index set (Alexandru: Col. 4 Equation (1) filter index k);
Cm is a representative coefficient wherein the representative coefficient represents a plurality of filter coefficients corresponding to the filter index set Dm (Alexandru: Col. 4 Equation (1) representative coefficient h[k]);
f(t-n) corresponds to the first input sequence input to the FIR filter (Alexandru: Col. 4 Equation (1) first input sequence s[n-k]); and
the first integral value for each filter index set m is defined by
I
m
(
t
)
=
∑
n
∈
D
m
f
t
-
n
where Im(t) is the first integral value for each filter index set m (Alexandru: Col. 4 Equation (2) first integral value as represented by h[n]);
compute a second integral value corresponding to the element in a coefficient sequence of a second input sequence next to the first input sequence (Alexandru: Col. 7 Equation (5) second integral computed with respect to second input sequence n+D which is next to the first input sequence);
compute an output signal value corresponding to the second input sequence based on the second integral value for each filter index set m and the coefficient sequence of the second input sequence (Alexandru: Col. 7 Equation 5 output signal o[n+d+D] corresponding to second input sequence is calculated),
further configured to add a value not overlapping the first input sequence in a second input sequence (Col. 4 Eq (1) s[n+1] where 0 ≤ h ≤ M-1), which is next to the first input sequence, to the first integral value and subtracting a value not overlapping the second input sequence in the first input sequence from the first integral value for the element, thereby computing a second integral value (Col. 4 Eq (1) O[n+1], also Col. 7 Eq(5) O[n+d+D]) corresponding to the element in a coefficient sequence of the second input sequence (computation as shown in Col. 7 Eq. (5) and further explained in Col. 7 Lines 42-52) by using the equation:
Im(t+1) = Im(t)+f(t + 1 – max Dm) – f(t – min Dm)
(Alexandru Col. 7 Equation 5) wherein Im(t+1) is the second integral value (Alexandru: Col. 7 Equation (7) o[n+d+D]), f(t+1-max Dm) is the second input sequence shifted by max Dm, (Alexandru Col. 7 Equation (5) Im(t) = s[k] and f(t+1-max Dm)=s[n]) which is the maximum filter index, and f(t-min Dm) is the first input sequence shifted by min Dm, which is the minimum filter index (Alexandru: Col 7 Equation (5) f(t-min Dm)=s[n+D]; claim 1 samples for FIR filtering are time shifted with respect to ranges of samples and coefficients, allowing for non-overlapping values in computation).
The MR imaging apparatus of Takeshima can be combined with the signal processing of Alexandru by having the signal processing of Alexandru implemented at the controller Fig. 1 Element 133 of Takeshima as the “some kind of processing” occurring within the controller. In this way, the signal apparatus of Alexandru can process the input of the overall system as recited in claim 1, while then outputting the corrected k-position to the gradient coil in the form of a power source, i.e., an electric current (Takeshima: ¶ 0031).
It would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed to a person with ordinary skill in the art to combine the signal processing apparatus of Alexandru with the MR imaging apparatus of Takeshima as both teachings are directed to signal processing. In using Alexandru’s signal processing apparatus within Takeshima’s MR imaging apparatus, Alexandru’s signal processing apparatus is simply being used for Takeshima’s specific purpose, while providing the advantage of saving significant chip resources and manufacturing costs (Alexandru: Col. 2 Lines 27-28).
Regarding claim 3, Takeshima in view of Alexandru teaches the computation of a third integral value corresponding to a third integral value. A plurality of integral values is computed from a plurality of input signals. Just as the second integral value is derived from the first integral value as discussed with respect to claim 1, the same is done to compute the third integral value derived from the second integral value (Alexandru: Col. 7 Eq. (5); Col. 7 Lines 42-52).
Regarding claim 4, Takeshima in view of Alexandru teaches the coefficient sequence corresponding to a sequence of amplification factors which further corresponds to an input sequence (Alexandru: Col. 4 Lines 30-35 and Eq. (1); Figs. 1, 2A, 2B, 2C show the inputs as amplitudes varying along the y-axis).
Regarding claim 6, Takeshima in view of Alexandru teaches the element being a representative coefficient representing a plurality of filter coefficients in a range, and the coefficient sequence being a series of representative coefficients (Alexandru: Col. 4 Lines 42-67; Col. 5 Lines 1-17; Col. 5 Lines 34-41 filter coefficients i.e., representative coefficients are quantized impulse responses of Figs. 1, 2A, 2B, 2C).
Regarding claim 9, Takeshima in view of Alexandru teaches the range of filter coefficients being determined by comparing an arithmetic result resulting from a filter processing with a threshold (Alexandru: Col. 5 Lines 42-67; Col. 6 Lines 1-11 frequency response specification as threshold, if not satisfactory then range of coefficients is adjusted and therefore the response is adjusted and comparison carried out once more until threshold is satisfied; Steps 330, 335, 340, and 350 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Takeshima in view of Alexandru teaches a magnetic resonance (MR) imaging apparatus (Takeshima: Fig. 1) having signal processing occurring at a controller (Takeshima: Fig. 1 Element 133 i.e. signal processing of Alexandru as explained in claim 1; ¶ 0037 discusses the controller having its own memory and processing circuitry) that outputs a position in k-space after signal processing in order to correct a position in k-space of the magnetic resonance data generated (Takeshima: ¶ 0069 describes k-space shifting i.e., changing in position based on output received from controller Fig. 1 Element 133) by controlling an electric current (Takeshima: ¶ 0031 driving a power source i.e., an electric current) supplied to gradient coil (Fig. 1 Element 103).
Regarding claim 11, Takeshima in view of Alexandru teaches the non-overlapping corresponding to delay in the input sequence (Alexandru: Col. 7 Lines 1-5 a delay is present to account for 0 coefficients of elements hi for coefficient sequence h1, h2, h3…; Col. 7 Lines 27-34 before each recursive operation i.e., between each integral value – and therefore between each input sequence – being calculated with Eq (5), there is a delay. Eq (5) ensures no overlap occurs in the computation of the distinct integral values).
Regarding claim 12, Takeshima in view of Alexandru teaches a memory configured to store a partial filter coefficient sequence belonging to each of a range of amplification factors (Alexandru: Col. 8 Lines 47-67 and Col. 9 Lines 1-3), as well as processing circuitry to determine a range of amplification factors i.e. representative coefficients (Alexandru: Col. 2 Lines 34-36 discuss the use of a memory and arithmetic units for processing i.e., the steps outlined in Fig. 3, Col. 5 Lines 25-67 and Col. 6 Lines 1-11).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshima, in view of Alexandru, further in view of Ichimura et al. (5701124) (hereinafter “Ichimura”).
While Takeshima in view of Alexandru teaches the signal processing apparatus of claim 6, filter coefficients, representative coefficients, first and second integral values, and first and second input sequences (Alexandru: representative coefficients i.e., filter coefficients shown in Figs. 1, 2A, 2B, 2C; O[n] and O[n+1] as first and second integral values of Eq (1); first and second input sequence in Eq (1) s[n] and s[n+1]), Takeshima in view of Alexandru does not explicitly teach the filter coefficients, representative coefficient, first integral value, and second integral value having a larger number of bits as compared to the first input sequence and second input sequence.
However, Ichimura teaches input signals (i.e., first and second input sequence) having a smaller number of bits then a coefficient signal (i.e. filter coefficients, representative coefficient) (Ichimura: Col. 10 Lines 54-59 within Claim 15). Since the input signals are being arithmetically processed by the filter coefficients, this would also result in the output first and second integral values having a larger number of bits as compared to the input signals.
It would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed to a person with ordinary skill in the art to combine the coefficient values having larger bits as taught by Ichimura with the apparatus of Takeshima in view of Alexandru as all teachings are directed to signal processing. The improvement of Ichimura lies in allowing for use of a broader range of coefficient signals, thus enabling greater quality (i.e., resolution) in the output signal (Ichimura: Col. 3 Lines 60-63).
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshima, in view of Alexandru, further in view of Choate et al. ("Simulation of Finite-Precision Effects in Digital Filters", 1991) (hereinafter “Choate”).
Regarding claim 8, while Takeshima in view of Alexandru teaches the signal processing apparatus of claim 6 and filter coefficients, representative coefficients, and first and second integral values (Alexandru: representative coefficients i.e., filter coefficients shown in Figs. 1, 2A, 2B, 2C; O[n] and O[n+1] as first and second integral values of Eq (1)), Takeshima in view of Alexandru does not explicitly teach these values being greater than 32 bits.
However, Choate teaches filter coefficients being 48 bits, which is greater than 32 bits (Choate: Page 5-51 Lines 13-17). Since the input signals are being arithmetically processed by the filter coefficients, this would also result in the output first and second integral values having a number of bits greater than 32 (e.g., 48 bits or more).
It would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed to a person with ordinary skill in the art to combine the coefficient values having more than 32 bits as taught by Choate with the apparatus of Takeshima in view of Alexandru as all teachings are directed to signal processing. The improvement of Choate lies in yielding higher precision therefore greater accuracy during computation and at output (Choate: Page 5-51 Lines 13-17).
Regarding claim 14, while Takeshima in view of Alexandru teaches the signal processing apparatus of claim 6 and filter coefficients, and representative coefficients (Alexandru: representative coefficients i.e., filter coefficients shown in Figs. 1, 2A, 2B, 2C), Takeshima in view of Alexandru does not explicitly teach these values being greater than 32 bits.
However, Choate teaches filter coefficients being 48 bits, which is greater than 32 bits (Choate: Page 5-51 Lines 13-17). Since the input signals are being arithmetically processed by the filter coefficients, this would also result in the output first and second integral values having a number of bits greater than 32 (e.g., 48 bits or more).
It would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed to a person with ordinary skill in the art to combine the coefficient values having more than 32 bits as taught by Choate with the apparatus of Takeshima in view of Alexandru as all teachings are directed to signal processing. The improvement of Choate lies in yielding higher precision therefore greater accuracy during computation and at output (Choate: Page 5-51 Lines 13-17).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshima, in view of Alexandru, further in view of Roelandts (“The Moving Average as a Filter", 2015) (hereinafter “Roelandts”).
While Alexandru in view of Takeshima teaches the signal processing apparatus of claim 12 and representative coefficient determining unit (the combination of Takeshima in view of Alexandru would result in Alexandru’s signal processing occurring within Takeshima’s controller Fig. 1 133 and would therefore result in Alexandru’s arithmetic units disclosed at Col. 2 Lines 34-36 i.e., weighting factor deriving unit 133c of Takeshima’s controller 133 in Fig. 1 as the representative coefficient determining unit), as well as filter coefficients and ranges of amplification factors (Alexandru: Col 5 Lines 25-67 and Col 6 Lines 1-11 ) Takeshima in view of Alexandru does not explicitly teach computing an average of the filter coefficients to determine a representative coefficient.
However, Roelandts teaches taking an average of weights i.e., filter coefficients (Roelandts: Pg. 1 Eq. for y[n]; Pg. 1 Lines 16-23).
It would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to combine the averaging of weights as taught by Roelandts with the apparatus of Takeshima in view of Alexandru as all teachings are directed to signal processing. Roelandts enhances the apparatus of Takeshima in view of Alexandru because in calculating the representative coefficient through Roelandts’s averaging weights, this would allow for the original data (i.e., signal) to be better aligned with the filtered data (i.e., signal) at output and so provides improved accuracy between the original and filtered data (i.e., signals) (Roelandts: Pg. 1 Lines 16-23).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA DE JESUS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-2793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-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, James Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
/M.D.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2151
/James Trujillo/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2151