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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/13/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 18, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims 1-21 and 23 do not recite mental processes or mere data
collection; that the claims improve MRI technology; that the claims are tied to particular MRI
machines and effect a transformation; that the claimed reconstruction constitutes a specific
technological solution; and that the claimed ordered combination is not well understood, routine,
and conventional.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained for the reasons previously set forth and as
further explained below. The following discussion further explains the basis of the existing
rejection in response to Applicant's arguments.
Step 2A, Prong One - Mental Process/Data Processing
Applicant argues that the Examiner improperly characterized the claims as mental steps or data collection because a human mind cannot generate magnetic fields, operate gradient coils, apply RF fields, receive magnetic resonance signals, or reconstruct MRI data into images.
Applicant's argument has been considered but does not overcome the rejection.
The Examiner does not dispute that the physical MRI components recited in claims 1 and 21
perform physical operations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. In
particular, the Examiner does not characterize the physical generation of a polarizing magnetic
field by the magnet system, application of magnetic gradient fields by the gradient system, application of RF fields, or physical receipt of magnetic resonance signals by the RF system/coil
array as mental activity.
Rather, consistent with the previous Office Action, the claims additionally recite
computer-implemented collection and analysis of information, including receiving fMRI data,
reconstructing the fMRI data using an rs-fMRI reconstruction process, comparing reconstructed
image information with reference information, determining motion/displacement based upon
such comparison where recited, and generating, communicating, or displaying the resulting
information.
The previous Office Action identified these information processing operations as the abstract
processing recited by the claims. The recitation that such processing is performed by a
computer system or computing device and uses MRI-generated information does not, by itself,
remove the identified information-processing operations from consideration under Step 2A.
Applicant further argues that the Examiner characterized the claims at an impermissibly high
level of abstraction and that the claims instead require the specific application of an rs-fMRI
reconstruction process to task-based fMRI data.
This argument has been considered. The Examiner has evaluated the claims as a whole,
including the recited relationship between task-based fMRI acquisition and rs-fMRI
reconstruction. However, the inclusion of those limitations does not end the eligibility inquiry.
The additional limitations must also be evaluated to determine whether the identified abstract
processing is integrated into a practical application.
Accordingly, Applicant's arguments concerning the physical operation of MRI hardware do not overcome the rejection under Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong Two - Practical Application
Applicant argues that the claims improve MRI technology because applying rs-fMRI
reconstruction to task-based fMRI data permits rapid reconstruction. Applicant relies particularly
upon Specification paragraph [0023], which explains that disregarding task/non-task distinctions
permits images to be reconstructed rapidly and, in certain embodiments, during fMRI acquisition
so that the images may be used to identify patient motion.
Applicant's asserted advantages have been considered. However, the claims must be evaluated according to what each claim actually requires.
Claim 1
Applicant argues that claim 1 necessarily constitutes a technological process because it
expressly recites a magnet system, magnetic gradient system, RF system/coil array, and a
computer system controlling the gradient and RF systems during task-based fMRI acquisition.
Applicant emphasizes that these physical MRI operations cannot be performed mentally.
As explained above, the Examiner does not characterize the physical MRI operations
themselves as mental activity. Rather, those physical components and operations are
considered in determining whether the identified computer implemented information processing
is integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 requires the computer system to perform the recited reconstruction and analysis during task-based fMRI acquisition, including reconstructing the fMRI dataset using an rs-fMRI
reconstruction process, comparing a rs image with a reference image, determining subject
motion and displacement, and generating an alert or real-time indication of displacement
communicated to an operator. The existing Office Action identifies these during-acquisition
operations.
Applicant's argument that this necessarily improves operation of the MRI system is not
persuasive because claim 1 does not require the determined motion or displacement to be used
to modify operation of the MRI system. For example, the claim does not require the determined
displacement to modify an acquisition parameter, alter RF or gradient operation, modify a pulse
sequence, stop or repeat an acquisition, reposition the subject, or otherwise control the MRI
system based upon the detected motion.
Rather, the claimed processing culminates in generation of an alert or real-time indication of
displacement communicated to an operator.
Accordingly, although the MRI system supplies the fMRI data and the recited processing occurs during task based acquisition, the claim does not require the resulting motion/displacement
information to cause a technological change in operation of the MRI system. The recited MRI
hardware and acquisition therefore do not, for the reasons previously stated, establish that the
identified information processing is integrated into a practical application.
Applicant's arguments therefore do not overcome the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 11
Applicant argues that claim 11 is technologically integrated because it requires a computing
device in communication with an MRI system and receives fMRI data while the MRI system is
performing task-based fMRI acquisition.
This argument has been considered but does not alter the conclusion.
Claim 11 performs the recited reconstruction, image comparison, and motion determination
during the task-based fMRI acquisition and communicates an alert indicating detected motion to
an operator. However, as with claim 1, claim 11 does not require the detected motion to modify
or control operation of the MRI system.
The claim does not require adjustment of an MRI acquisition parameter, modification of RF or gradient operation, modification of a pulse sequence, termination or repetition of an acquisition,
or other control of the MRI system in response to the detected motion.
Accordingly, although the claimed processing is performed using information generated during an MRI acquisition, the resulting information is communicated to an operator rather than being positively recited as controlling or modifying the MRI acquisition.
Applicant additionally characterizes the claimed arrangement as a "closed-loop real-time
feedback system that enables corrective action during the scan." However, claim 11 does not
positively recite such corrective action. Any subsequent action that an operator might take
based upon the communicated alert is not required by the claim.
Applicant's arguments therefore do not overcome the rejection of claim 11.
Claim 21
Applicant argues that claim 21, like claim 1, expressly requires specialized MRI hardware and therefore is tied to a particular machine. Applicant identifies the magnet system, gradient
system, RF system, and computer system as specialized MRI components integral to the
claimed invention.
The argument has been considered. As explained above, the Examiner does not characterize the physical operation of the magnet, gradient, or RF systems as mental activity. Rather, those elements are considered as additional elements in determining whether the identified processing is integrated into a practical application.
The existing rejection recognizes that claim 21 recites an MRI system having magnet, gradient and RF subsystems and a computer programmed to perform task-based acquisition and
resting-state reconstruction.
However, claim 21 does not require the resulting rs-fMRI images to be used to determine
subject motion or displacement, generate a motion-based alert, modify an acquisition
parameter, alter RF or gradient operation, modify a pulse sequence, or otherwise control the
MRI system based upon the reconstructed information.
Thus, although the recited MRI hardware is used to perform the acquisition from which the fMRI information is obtained, claim 21 does not require the result of the recited reconstruction to
effect a further technological change in operation of the MRI system.
The presence of specialized MRI hardware is therefore considered but does not, by itself,
establish integration of the identified processing into a practical application.
Applicant's arguments therefore do not overcome the rejection of claim 21.
Claim 23
Applicant argues that claim 23 provides a specific technological improvement because it
requires receiving fMRI data acquired while a subject performs a task or experiences a stimulus
and reconstructing that data using an rs-fMRI reconstruction process without accounting for the
task or stimulus. Applicant argues that this specific reconstruction technique improves the speed
and utility of fMRI reconstruction.
The argument has been considered but is not persuasive. Unlike claims 1 and 21, claim 23 does not require the particular MRI hardware identified by Applicant. Claim 23 does not require a magnet system, gradient system, RF system/coil array, or computer control of such systems.
Claim 23 recites receiving the specified fMRI data, reconstructing that data using an rs-fMRI
reconstruction process without accounting for the task or stimulus, and displaying the resulting
rs-fMRI images.
Moreover, Applicant's reliance upon the real-time motion-management advantages described in Specification paragraph [0023] is not commensurate with the scope of claim 23. Although the Specification describes reconstruction during acquisition and use of the reconstructed images to identify patient motion, claim 23 does not require reconstruction during an ongoing acquisition, real-time reconstruction, comparison with a reference image, motion detection, displacement determination, an alert, operator feedback, corrective action, or modification of MRI operation. Accordingly, the additional technological advantages associated with real-time motion
management described in the Specification are not required by claim 23 as presently drafted.
Applicant's arguments therefore do not overcome the rejection of claim 23.
Particular-Machine and Transformation Arguments
Applicant argues that claims 1 and 21 are expressly tied to specialized MRI machines and that claim 11 likewise requires communication with an MRI system performing task-based
acquisition. These limitations have been considered. The presence of a particular machine is relevant to the practical-application analysis, but the recitation of a machine does not alone resolve that inquiry. As explained above, claims 1 and 11 do not require the resulting motion information to modify operation of the MRI system, claim 21 does not require the reconstructed information to control the MRI system, and claim 23 does not recite the particular MRI hardware relied upon by
Applicant. Applicant further argues that the claims transform raw fMRI sensor information into
reconstructed images and, for claims 1 and 11, subsequently into motion/displacement
information. The asserted transformation concerns processing information representing the imaged
subject-from acquired fMRI information into reconstructed image information and, where
recited, into motion/displacement information. The claims do not require the resulting
information to transform the subject or another physical article into a different state or thing.
Accordingly, these arguments do not alter the conclusion under Step 2A, Prong Two.
McRO, CardioNet, and BASCOM
Applicant relies upon McRO as supporting eligibility of a specific technological process involving computational operations, CardioNet as distinguished technological processing from mere
collection and analysis of data, and BASCOM for the proposition that an inventive concept may
reside in an unconventional arrangement of otherwise conventional elements.
These arguments have been considered but do not alter the conclusion. The claims are evaluated according to the limitations actually recited. Claims 1 and 11 do not require the determined motion to cause modification or control of the MRI acquisition; claim 21 does not require the reconstructed information to cause modification or control of the MRI system; and claim 23 does not require the real-time motion-management operations upon which. Applicant substantially relies. Applicant's reliance upon these decisions therefore does not establish that the claims, as presently drafted, integrate the identified abstract processing into a practical application.
Prior-Art Allowability and Applicant's WURC Argument
Applicant argues that the §101 rejection is inconsistent with the Examiner's determination that the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed combinations and argues that a
novel and nonobvious arrangement cannot simultaneously be well-understood, routine, and
conventional. The argument has been considered but does not establish patent eligibility.
The inquiries under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103 and the eligibility inquiry under §101 are separate.
The determination that the prior art presently of record does not anticipate or render obvious the
claimed combination does not, by itself, establish that the claim integrates an identified judicial
exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the Examiner's prior art determination is not inconsistent with maintaining the § 101 rejection.
Berkheimer/ Step 2B
Applicant further argues that the previous Office Action did not provide sufficient evidentiary
support for its determination that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and
conventional and relies upon Berkheimer. Applicant's argument has been considered.
However, the well understood, routine, and conventional inquiry associated with Step 2B is not
the test for determining integration into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant's arguments regarding the evidentiary basis for conventionality therefore do not alter
the foregoing determination that the claims fail to integrate the identified abstract processing into a practical application under Step 2A. To the extent Step 2B is reached, the rejection is maintained for the reasons previously stated in the Office Action. No new determination of conventionality is relied upon herein to alter the basic basis of the rejection.
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.
Claim 1-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As to Claim 1,
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 1 recites “receiving fMRI data from an MRI system, reconstructing the dataset using a resting state reconstruction process, comparing the reconstructed images to a reference image, and generating an alert”. These operations constitute data collection”. These features are considered abstract ideas because they are directed towards mental steps or relationships, because receiving fMRI data from an MRI system, reconstructing the dataset using a resting state reconstruction process, comparing the reconstructed images to a reference image, and generating an alert. These operations constitute data collection are reasonably implemented with such mental steps or relationships.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The above identified abstract ideas are not reasonably integrated in a practical application as no claim feature reasonably implements or otherwise integrates the above features into required practical application. The additional elements, a magnet system, gradient system, RF system and computer system, perform only conventional MRI computing functions and do not improve the operation of the MRI hardware of computer. The “rs-fMRI reconstruction process” is described solely by its intended results. Accordingly, the abstract idea is not integrated into practical application that improves the functionality of a computer, MRI scanner, or any other technology.
Step 2B: Claim 1 includes “receiving fMRI data from an MRI system, reconstructing the dataset using a resting state reconstruction process, comparing the reconstructed images to a reference image, and generating an alert”. These features are considered abstract ideas because they are directed towards mental steps or relationships,
The recited steps of receiving data, reconstructing using a mathematical process and displaying the results are well understood m routine and conventional activities in the field medical image processing. The above noted additional elements amount to insufficient extra-solution activity because they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and because they are conventional.
Claim 2-10 stands rejected for same reasons as claim 1.
As to Claim 11,
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 11 recites “receiving fMRI data, performing resting state reconstruction, comparing to a reference image, determining motion, and generating an alert”. These features are considered abstract ideas because they are directed towards mental steps or relationships, because “receiving fMRI data, performing resting state reconstruction, comparing to a reference image, determining motion, and generating an alert”. These operations constitute data collection are reasonably implemented with such mental steps or relationships.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The above identified abstract ideas are not reasonably integrated in a practical application as no claim feature reasonably implements or otherwise integrates the above features into required practical application. The additional elements, computer system and MRI perform only conventional MRI computing functions and do not improve the operation of the MRI hardware of computer. The “receiving fMRI data, performing resting state reconstruction, comparing to a reference image, determining motion, and generating an alert”. Accordingly, the abstract idea is not integrated into practical application that improves the functionality of a computer, MRI scanner, or any other technology.
Step 2B: Claim 11 includes “receiving fMRI data, performing resting state reconstruction, comparing to a reference image, determining motion, and generating an alert”. These features are considered abstract ideas because they are directed towards mental steps or relationships,
The recited steps of receiving data, reconstructing using a mathematical process and generating the alerts are well understood m routine and conventional activities in the field medical image processing. The above noted additional elements amount to insufficient extra-solution activity because they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and because they are conventional.
Claim 12-20 stands rejected for same reasons as claim 11.
As to Claim 21,
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 21 recites “an MRI system with magnet, gradient and RF subsystem, and a computer programmed to perform task based acquisition and resting state reconstruction”. These features are considered abstract ideas because they are directed towards mental steps or relationships, because “perform task based acquisition and resting state reconstruction”. These operations constitute data collection are reasonably implemented with such mental steps or relationships.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The above identified abstract ideas are not reasonably integrated in a practical application as no claim feature reasonably implements or otherwise integrates the above features into required practical application. The additional elements an MRI system with magnet, gradient and RF subsystem, and a computer programmed do not improve the operation of the MRI hardware of computer. The “perform task based acquisition and resting state reconstruction”. Accordingly, the abstract idea is not integrated into practical application that improves the functionality of a computer, MRI scanner, or any other technology.
Step 2B: Claim 21 includes “perform task based acquisition and resting state reconstruction”. These features are considered abstract ideas because they are directed towards mental steps or relationships,
The recited steps of receiving data, reconstructing using a mathematical process and generating the alerts are well understood m routine and conventional activities in the field medical image processing. The above noted additional elements amount to insufficient extra-solution activity because they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and because they are conventional.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As to Claim 23,
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 23 includes receiving functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, reconstructing the fMRI data,.., using a resting-state fMRI (rs-fMRI) reconstruction process without accounting,.., task or stimulus,.., displaying the rs-fMRI image. These features are considered abstract ideas because they are directed towards mental steps or relationships, because receiving functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, reconstructing the fMRI data,.., using a resting-state fMRI (rs-fMRI) reconstruction process without accounting,.., task or stimulus,.., displaying the rs-fMRI image are reasonably implemented with such mental steps or relationships.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The above identified abstract ideas are not reasonably integrated in a practical application as no claim feature reasonably implements or otherwise integrates the above features into required practical application. Although the claim nominally relates to “functional magnetic resonance imaging”, no element imposes any specific limitation on how the MRI data are acquired or how the reconstruction process is implemented in hardware. The claim lacks any recitation of particular MRI components or any technological improvement in MRI operation. Accordingly, the abstract idea is not integrated into practical application that improves the functionality of a computer, MRI scanner, or any other technology.
Step 2B: Claim includes receiving functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, reconstructing the fMRI data,.., using a resting-state fMRI (rs-fMRI) reconstruction process without accounting,.., task or stimulus,.., displaying the rs-fMRI image. These features are considered abstract ideas because they are directed towards mental steps or relationships,
The recited steps of receiving data, reconstructing using a mathematical process and displaying the results are well understood m routine and conventional activities in the field medical image processing. The above noted additional elements amount to insufficient extra-solution activity because they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and because they are conventional.
Note: Claims 1, 11, 21 and 23 are rejected under 101 however no prior art rejection has been applied because the prior art of record does not teach the limitations of these claims as previously indicated in the office action dated 11/19/2025.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAQI R NASIR whose telephone number is (571)270-1425. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/TAQI R NASIR/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights