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 .
The application being examined, 17/933,109, is a CON of 15/481,981 of date 4/07/2017 which claims a provisional date of 4/09/2016. Since 17/933,109 differs substantially from 15/481,981, Applicant cannot claim the previous dates as time of filing. Examiner will use the filing date, 9/18/2022 as the “date to beat” in his search for prior art.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
It is unclear to Examiner if all the first choices of “head phantom, an abdominal phantom, a prostate phantom, a pancreatic phantom” are “ors”—so that
the art need to find only one of them, or if they are “ands”—so that the Examiner must find all of them.
For purposes of examination Examiner will assume “broadest possible interpretation” i.e., that they are “ors” and Examiner need only find one of the phantom examples.
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.
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 because the claims are drawn pure mathematical manipulation.
Regarding claim 1
There is little to no support for the mathematical manipulation.
What is the performing the activities of “comparing & adjusting”—a technician, a device peripheral to the MRI machine or the machine itself?
Further: there is no utility to an end user. How is calibrated machine performing a useful purpose—is it acquiring MRI data. How are these data presented to the user—stored in a database, presented on a GUI or computer screen?
Regarding claims 2 - 11
The same rejections apply as though to dependent claim above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1—11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mirowski et al. (US-20170293011-A1).
Regarding claim 1
Mirowski discloses
A method of calibrating an MRI system, comprising the steps of by the system, measuring the value of a selected MRI property of an adipose mimic composition ([0006]);
wherein the adipose mimic composition ([0009]) comprises a mixture of:
linoleic acid of at least 90% purity and oleic acid of at least 90% purity ([0038);
wherein the mixture comprises between 5% and 20% linoleic acid ([0032]);
comparing the acquired value of the selected MRI property of the mimic composition against the expected, known value of such MRI property to determine
the degree of variance, if any, between the measured and expected value ([0084]); and
adjusting the MRI system or scan parameters thereof to correct for any observed divergence between the measured value and the expected value of the selected MRI property ([0091]).
Regarding claim 2
Mirowski teaches the method of Claim 1.
Mirowski, applied to claim 2, further teaches
wherein adipose mimic composition comprises 9-10% linoleic acid ([0053]).
Regarding claim 3
Mirowski teaches the method of Claim 1.
Mirowski, applied to claim 3, further teaches
wherein the selected MRI property is a T1 relaxation value (Abstract).
Regarding claim 4
Mirowski teaches the method of Claim 1.
Mirowski, applied to claim 4, further teaches
wherein the selected MRI property is a T2 relaxation value (Abstract).
Regarding claim 5
Mirowski teaches the method of Claim 1.
Mirowski, applied to claim 5, further teaches
wherein the measurement includes a measurement of the selected MRI property of the adipose mimic composition and a measurement of the selected MRI property of the adipose mimic composition ([0088])
wherein an interface exists between water and the adipose mimic composition ([0088]).
Regarding claim 6
Mirowski teaches the method of Claim 1.
Mirowski, applied to claim 6, further teaches
wherein the selected MRI property of the adipose mimic composition is magnetic susceptibility ([0068]—[0071]).
Regarding claim 7
Mirowski teaches the method of Claim 1.
Mirowski, applied to claim 7, further teaches
wherein, a temperature dependence of magnetic susceptibility of the adipose mimic composition is measured ([0072]).
Regarding claim 8
Mirowski teaches the method of Claim 1.
Mirowski, applied to claim 8, further teaches
wherein the measurement is obtained with the adipose mimic composition in proximity to or admixed with fibroglandular mimicking material ([0082]).
Regarding claim 9
Mirowski teaches the method of Claim 1.
Mirowski, applied to claim 9, further teaches
wherein the adipose mimic composition is contained in a container, wherein the container is placed within a phantom ([0008].
Regarding claim 10
Mirowski teaches the method of Claim 9.
Mirowski, applied to claim 9, further teaches
wherein the phantom is a breast phantom ([0082]).
Regarding claim 11
Mirowski teaches the method of Claim 9.
Mirowski, applied to claim 10, further teaches
wherein the phantom is selected from the group consisting of:
a head phantom, an abdominal phantom, a prostate phantom ([0008] & [0082]), a pancreatic phantom, or a liver phantom ([0082]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK WENDEROTH whose telephone number is (571)270-1945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m. - 4 p.m.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached on 571-272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852 /Frederick Wenderoth/
Examiner, Art Unit 2852
