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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 2-3, recites “Measuring and reconstructing a time series of high-speed functional MRI scan data sets in human or animal brain” but is grammatically incorrect. Examiner suggests --Measuring and reconstructing a time series of high-speed functional MRI scan data sets from a human or animal brain--.
Claim 7, line 2 recites “FFT” but should recite --fast Fourier transform (FFT)-- for the first occurrence.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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, line 10 recites the limitation "said regions". Line 8 recites “multiple brain regions” and line 9 recites “cerebrospinal fluid containing regions”. It is unclear which regions line 10 are referencing. Same issue applies to line 13.
Claim 1, line 11 recites the limitation "said motion parameters". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is referencing back to “a plurality of rigid body movement parameters” in line 6.
Claim 1, line 14-15 recites the limitation “said temporal segments”. Line 11 recites “temporally segmenting said motion parameters” and line 14 recites “Temporally segmenting said functional MRI scan data sets” which renders the limitation indefinite because it is not clear if the limitation is referring to lines 11 or 14, and if so, which one.
Claim 1, line 16 recites “each… spatial region” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is that same “said regions” in lines 10 and 13 or different spatial regions. If the spatial regions are different, they lack antecedent basis for the step in lines 16-17.
Claims 2-16 inherit the same deficiencies.
Claim 2, line 1 recites the limitation "the step of minimizing". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2, lines 1-2 recites the limitation "the loss of intrinsic resting-state signal fluctuations". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2, line 2 recites the limitation "the introduction of false positive signal fluctuations". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2, line 3 recites the limitation "the segmentation of said regression vectors". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2, line 3 recites the limitation "the spectral and temporal domain". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3, line 1 recites the limitation "the step of segmenting said scan data". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3, line 3 recites the limitation "the entire scan". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous recitation is “scan data set”.
Claim 4, line 1 recites the limitation "the step of employing". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4, line 2 recites the limitation "said scan data". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous recitation is “scan data set”. Also present in line 4.
Claim 4, lines 4-5 recites the limitation "the length of each segment". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4, line 5 recites the limitation "the spectral domain". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “sufficiently stable” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “sufficiently” is not defined and therefore it is unclear as to what extent is required for the stability to be considered sufficient.
Claim 5, line 1 recites the limitation "the step of employing". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6, line 1 recites the limitation "regression vectors", but it is unclear if the regression vectors are the same regression vectors from claim 1.
Claim 6, line 2 recites the limitation "their higher order derivatives", but it is unclear if the “their” is referencing the regression vectors or motion parameters.
Claim 6, line 3 recites the limitation "the spectral domain". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7, line 2 recites the limitation "the motion parameter time course". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7, lines 2-3 recites the limitation "the segment of interest.". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 inherits the same deficiencies.
Claim 9, line 1 recites the limitation " the labeled feature". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11, line 1 recites the limitation "the average signal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11, line 2 recites the limitation "the frequency range". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11, line 1 recites the limitation "the labeled feature". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12, lines 2-3 recites the limitation "the power spectral integral". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12, line 3 recites the limitation "the frequency range of the feature". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12, line 3 recites the limitation "the corrected signal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13, line 1 recites the limitation "the maximum number of spectral bands". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13, line 4 recites the limitation "the tolerated residual correlation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13, lines 4-5 recites the limitation "the original regression vector". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Posse (US 9116219 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Posse discloses a method of performing functional magnetic resonance imaging (Abstract), comprising the steps of: a. Measuring and reconstructing a time series of high-speed functional MRI scan data sets in human or animal brain using an acquisition rate that enables spectral separation of physiological noise signals, including, but not limited to respiratory and cardiac pulsatility, and hardware related signal fluctuations (Col. 3 lines 13-26, Col. 4 lines 3-32, Col. 11 lines 11-27); b. Measuring a plurality of rigid body movement parameters for translations and rotations in different directions in said data sets relative to one of said data sets (Col. 6 line 52 - Col. 7 line 3); c. Spatially segmenting said data sets into multiple brain regions, including, but not limited to gray matter, white matter and cerebrospinal fluid containing regions (Col. 6 line 52 - Col. 7 line 23); d. Measuring said physiological noise signals and said hardware related signal fluctuations in said regions (Col. 11 lines 11-27); e. Spectrally and temporally segmenting said motion parameters, said physiological noise signals and said hardware related signal fluctuations, resulting in multiple regression vectors for each spectral segment and each of said regions (Col. 7 lines 43-54); f. Temporally segmenting said functional MRI scan data sets into said temporal segments (Col. 6 line 52 - Col. 7 line 23); and g. Performing linear regression within each temporal segment (Col. 6 line 52 - Col. 7 line 3) and spatial region of said data sets using said regression vectors (Col. 7 lines 43-54).
Regarding claim 2, Posse further discloses the step of minimizing the loss of intrinsic resting-state signal fluctuations and mitigating the introduction of false positive signal fluctuations by the segmentation of said regression vectors in the spectral and temporal domain (Col. 11 lines 28-67).
Regarding claim 3, Posse further discloses the step of segmenting said scan data in time into n segments within which frequency and amplitude fluctuations of motion parameters and physiological noise are reduced compared to the entire scan (Col. 10 lines 9-31, Col. 11 lines 28-67).
Regarding claim 4, Posse further discloses the step employing a temporally segmented regression of said scan data using spectral segmentation of said motion parameters, said physiological noise signals and said hardware related signal fluctuations into k spectral segments with no overlap (Col. 7 lines 43-54, Col. 11 lines 11-27).; said scan data is segmented in time into n segments with no overlap and the length of each segment is chosen such that it is long enough to resolve features in the spectral domain and short enough for respiration rate, cardiac pulsation and hardware related signal fluctuations, to be sufficiently stable (Col. 7 lines 43-54, Col. 11 lines 11-27).
Regarding claim 6, Posse further discloses regression vectors are constructed from said motion parameters and their higher order derivatives; each motion parameter is filtered into k number of segments in the spectral domain to obtain an independent regression vector for each spectral band (Col. 7 lines 43-54, Col. 11 lines 11-27).
Regarding claim 12, Posse further discloses constructed regression vectors are phase shifted individually for each slice of said functional MRI scan data sets to minimize the power spectral integral in the frequency range of the feature in the corrected signal across the entire slice (Col. 7 lines 43-54, Col. 11 lines 11-27).
Regrading claim 13, Posse further discloses the maximum number of spectral bands is determined using self-regression testing where regression vectors are segmented into a varying number of spectral bands and regressed using each set of spectrally segmented regression vectors with the maximum number of spectral bands decided based on the tolerated residual correlation between the original regression vector and resulting regressed signal (Col. 7 lines 43-54, Col. 11 lines 11-27).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posse (US 9116219 B1) as in view of Wu (US 20220179023 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Posse does not disclose the step of employing a sliding window for temporal segmentation. Wu discloses a method for acquiring, measuring and reconstructing MRI data (Abstract), wherein a sliding window is used to maintain consistent temporal resolution (Paragraph [0068]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Posse, with employing a sliding window for temporal segmentation as taught by Wu, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of maintaining a consistent temporal resolution (Paragraph [0068]).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posse (US 9116219 B1) as in view of Moeller (“Multihand Multislice GE-EPI at 7 Tesla, With 16-Fold Acceleration Using Partial Parallel Imaging With Application to High Spatial and Temporal Whole-Brain FMRI”, 2010).
Regarding claim 7, Posse fails to disclose a non-causal filter is used to filter the motion parameters by applying FFT to the motion parameter time course then using inverse FFT to obtain the segment of interest. Moeller discloses a method for MRI image correction for increased volumetric coverage and concurrent high spatial and temporal resolution (Abstract) wherein a non-causal filter is used to filter the motion parameters by applying FFT to the motion parameter time course then using inverse FFT to obtain the segment of interest (Page 1146, Column 2). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Posse, with a non-causal filter used to filter the motion parameters by applying FFT to the motion parameter time course then using inverse FFT to obtain the segment of interest as taught by Moeller, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of ensuring optimal spatially specific corrections (Page 1146, Column 2).
Regarding claim 8, Posse, as modified by Moeller in claim 7, further discloses a temporally segmented regression of said filtered motion parameters is applied to obtain motion-corrected data (Col. 7 lines 43-54, Col. 11 lines 11-27).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posse (US 9116219 B1) as in view of Majeed (US 20200342591 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Posse fails to disclose a spatial mask of the labeled feature is generated based on an anatomical brain atlas and used to obtain a spatially averaged signal to construct a representative regression vector. Majeed discloses a method for phase correction in proton resonance frequency (PRF) thermometry application (abstract), wherein the MRI image background phase information is removed is calculated using a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) based approach (Paragraph [0023]). For the PCA, Majeed further discloses a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)-based spatial mask is computed on the baseline series, the complex phase difference between baseline images and BAve is computed, the PCA is performed on the phase difference images over the spatial mask to yield a plurality of eigen images and the first Npc of the resultant eigen-images are retained as basis images for correcting the therm series (Paragraph [0024]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Posse, such that a spatial mask of the labeled feature is generated based on an anatomical brain atlas and used to obtain a spatially averaged signal to construct a representative regression vector as taught by Majeed, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of removing background phase information (Paragraph [0023]).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posse (US 9116219 B1) as in view of Dipasquale (“Comparing resting state fMRI de-noising approaches using multi- and single-echo acquisitions”, 2017).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Posse (US 9116219 B1) does not disclose a mask is generated based on a power-spectral integral threshold relative to a labeled non-physiological noise frequency range and wherein the average signal within the mask is pass-band filtered in the frequency range of the labeled feature to construct a regression vector for the feature within the segment. Dipasquale discloses de-noising and artifact removal methods for fMRI (Abstract), wherein disclose a mask is generated based on a power-spectral integral threshold relative to a labeled non-physiological noise frequency range (Page 9, the use of power spectral density) and wherein the average signal within the mask is pass-band filtered in the frequency range of the labeled feature to construct a regression vector for the feature within the segment (Page 9, low pass filtering). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Posse, with a mask generated based on a power-spectral integral threshold relative to a labeled non-physiological noise frequency range and wherein the average signal within the mask is pass-band filtered in the frequency range of the labeled feature to construct a regression vector for the feature within the segment as taught by Dipasquale, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of clearing noise at both high and low frequencies (Figure 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc D Honrath whose telephone number is (571)272-6219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Charles A Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/M.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights