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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/12/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 10-13, 17, 21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien (US 2021/0196143) in view of Minkoff (US 9,386,939).
O’Brien discloses a system for characterization of metabolite compounds, the system comprising: a magnetic resonance spectrometer (104) comprising a bore (106), wherein the bore is sized and shaped to receive a an appendage of a user (108; [0180]), wherein the appendage comprises a tissue volume of the user (108; Fig. 1A), wherein the magnetic resonance spectrometer generates an in vivo magnetic resonance dataset ([0182]); and a radio frequency transmitter ([0272]) and a RF detector ([0273]), wherein the RF detector detects a signal from the tissue volume in response to a transmitted RF signal from the RF transmitter ([0273]), and wherein the signal from the tissue volume is used in generating the in vivo magnetic resonance dataset ([0273]); a processor operably coupled to the spectrometer ([0267]); a memory operably coupled to the processor providing instructions to the processor to extract one or more metabolomic parameters from the in vivo magnetic resonance dataset, wherein the one or more metabolomic parameters relate to a concentration of one or more metabolites within the tissue volume of the user ([0260]; [0267]). O’Brien discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for wherein the at least one antenna is a phased array. However, Minkoff teaches in the same field of endeavor wherein the antenna is a phased array antenna to match the shape of the human anatomy (col. 6, lines 16-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided O’Brien with a phased array antenna as taught by Minkoff as the use of a phased array antenna is well known in the art.
With respect to claim 2, O’Brien discloses wherein the magnetic resonance spectrometer comprises a volume less than one meter cubed and a weight less than 25 kilograms ([0335]).
With respect to claim 3, O’Brien discloses a magnetic array produces a dipole magnetic field ([0357]).
With respect to claim 4, O’Brien discloses an electromagnet or a permanent magnet ([0185]; [0188]; [0399]).
With respect to claim 5, O’Brien discloses a Halbach arrangement ([0378]).
With respect to claim 8, O’Brien discloses a radiofrequency detector ([0174-0175]).
With respect to claims 10-11, O’Brien discloses kiosk comprising a user interface ([0100]).
With respect to claim 12, O’Brien discloses wherein the magnetic resonance spectrometer is configured to direct data from the user to cloud computing system ([0181]).
With respect to claim 13, O’Brien discloses wherein the data comprises the at least one metabolic parameter paired with at least one measurement time or user identify information ([0277]).
With respect to claim 17, O’Brien discloses a magnetic field less than 3 Tesla ([0006]).
With respect to claim 21, O’Brien disclose a hand (108).
With respect to claim 24, O’Brien discloses one or more auxiliary sensors ([0276]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien (US 2021/0196143) in view of Minkoff (US 9,386,939)as applied to claim 1, further in view of Wang (US 2019/0056470).
O’Brien discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for wherein the radiofrequency waveform comprises a variable spectral and temporal profile set at least partly based on a set of parameters selected by a user. However, Wang teaches in the same field of endeavor providing one or more user-selectable parameters ([0004]; [0046]; [0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided O’Brien with user selectable parameters as taught by Wang in order to obtain a targeted objective metric ([0146]).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien (US 2021/0196143) in view of Minkoff (US 9,386,939) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Iannello (US 2016/0011290).
O’Brien discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for cholesterol. However, Iannello teaches in the same field of endeavor monitoring the concentration of cholesterol. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided O’Brien with monitoring cholesterol as taught by Iannello as it is a well known metabolite and substitution of monitoring one metabolite for another is well known in the art.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien (US 2021/0196143) in view of Minkoff (US 9,386,939) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0347790).
O’Brien discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for machine learning or Bayesian optimization. However, Lee et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor analysis using machine learning algorithms and Bayesian classifiers ([0002]; [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided O’Brien with machine learning or Bayesian optimization as taught by Lee et al. as the use of automated analysis is well known and a substitution of one analysis technique for another is well within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner notes the claims recite the processor to implement the ML or Bayesian optimization, the particular algorithms of the ML or Bayesian optimization are outside the scope of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed combination of subject matter wherein the processor is configured to automatically segment the initial region of interest into a plurality of subregions, obtain initial magnetic resonance at locations within the plurality of subregions, and calculate a location gradient.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, O’Brien discloses the MR spectrometer including a radio frequency transmitter and RF detector, which comprises an antenna. O’Brien does not teach the antenna is a phased array. However, Minkoff teaches in the same field of endeavor, magnetic resonance, wherein the antenna is a phased array antenna to match the shape of the human anatomy (col. 6, lines 16-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided O’Brien with a phased array antenna as taught by Minkoff as the use of a phased array antenna to match the shape of the human anatomy col. (6, lines 16-20) is well known in the art. As such, Minkoff is relied upon to teach the arrangement of the antenna into a phased array (see Fig. 5) and not a substitution for the sized phased array of Minkoff’s system.
In response to applicant's argument that the reference does not teach using a phased array to dynamically control a focus of an RF waveform into a targeted tissue volume, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Anhtuan T Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
/PETER LUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
