DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-12 are under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
Claim 1-12 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 free induction fading signal" in step (d). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This term was not recited previously in the instant claim or in the parent claim. It is unclear to what the term refers. Instant claims 2-12 are also rejected for depending from claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the term “the relaxation time” in step (f). However, it is unclear if the relaxation time refers to T1 or T2 relaxation times or if the term is intended to include both relaxation times. Clarification via clearer claim language is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the basis of predefined values" in step (g). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This term was not recited previously in the instant claim. In addition, it is unclear what the predefined values represent or measure.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the isolation forest algorithm" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This term was not recited previously in the instant claim or in the parent claim. It is unclear to what the term refers.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the analyzed data series" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This term was not recited previously in the instant claim or in the parent claim. It is unclear to what the term refers.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the times of echo" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This term was not recited previously in the instant claim or in the parent claim. It is unclear to what the term refers.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the analysis" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This term was not recited previously in the instant claim or in the parent claim. It is unclear to what the term refers.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the changes" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This term was not recited previously in the instant claim or in the parent claim. It is unclear to what the term refers.
Claim 12 recites “non-transitory computer program instructions”. It is unclear how the computer programs are non-transitory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 1-12 are directed to method detecting the presence of abnormal tissue using T1 and T2 relaxation times. As described in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S._, 134 S. Cr. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014), a two-step analysis is required in considering the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter. The first step requires determining if the claimed subject matter is directed to a judicial exception. The instant claims require the steps of determining a region of interest, determining the average value of the free induction decay signal, detecting scans with outlier data, identifying the scan with outlier data, determining the relaxation time, and classifying the tissue as normal or abnormal. These steps are drawn to a mathematical algorithm. Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-11 recite additional mathematical steps. The courts have found mathematical algorithms to be drawn to the judicial exception of an abstract idea (In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1824 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Thus, the instant claims are drawn to a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The instant claims do not recite an element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology, an element that applies the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, an element that implements the judicial exception with a particular machine, or an element that effects a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing. The instant claims recite the elements of a computing device, loading into a computing device, storing in a results database, a computer readable medium, and computer program instructions. However, the instant claims do not recite any structural limitations of the computing device, computer readable medium or computer program instructions. These elements are not drawn to a particular machine. In addition, storing results in a database and loading data into a computer are extra solution activity, and do not impart a practical application to the judicial exception. The instant claims do not integrate the judicial exception in a practical application.
The second part of the analysis requires determining if the claims include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The instant claims recite the additional elements of the elements of a computing device, loading into a computing device, storing in a results database, a computer readable medium, and computer program instructions. The computing device, computer readable medium or computer program instruction are well-understood, conventional and routine elements of a conventional computer (Specification, page 13). The steps of storing results in a database and loading data into a computer are well-understood, conventional data gathering steps or output steps (Specification pages 13-14; MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)) Reciting such well-understood, routine, and conventional elements do not transform a judicial exception into patent eligible subject matter. In addition, the recitation of the specific types of data, to be used in the judicial exception does not transform the abstract idea into a non-abstract idea. (See buySAFE, Inc. v Google, Inc. 765 F.3d 1350, 112 U.S.P.Q.2d 1093 (Fed.Cir.2014)). Furthermore, the elements taken as a combination are also well-understood, routine, and conventional, since the elements are merely specifying using a conventional computer to implement the judicial exception. Thus, the instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
4. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Instant claim 12 is drawn to a computer readable medium. A computer readable medium encompasses carrier waves. Carrier waves are non-statutory per se. Thus, the instant claim is drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner’s Note:
5. The prior art discloses identifying tumors using relaxation time from a magnetic resonance apparatus (Wagner-Manslau et al. “MRI and proton-NMR Relaxation Times in Diagnosis and Therapeutic monitoring of Squamous Cell Carcinoma” European Radiology (1994) Volume 4, pages 314-323). The prior art does not teach detecting scans with outlier data in each data series, wherein detection of scans with outlier data is determined through analysis of the average value of the intensity of the free induction fading signal within the region of interest for each scan in the respective data series.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2561. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 7am-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, Olivia Wise can be reached at (571) 272-2249. 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.
/JERRY LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1685