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 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 – 3, 7, 8, 12 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbard (US-20140275960-A1) in view of Gurevich (RU-2003133170-A).
Regarding claim 1
Hubbard discloses
A processing arrangement ([0003]) comprising one or more processors ([0086]) adapted to:
obtain functional MRI (fMRI) data for a patient corresponding to one or
more areas of the brain ([0027]),
wherein the fMRI data is acquired while the patient is performing a pre-determined cognitive task ([0027]);
obtain cognitive task results data for the patient, corresponding to the cognitive task administered while acquiring the fMRI data ([0011]);
derive from the obtained fMRI data neurological activity data ([0005]—[0008]);
retrieve from a datastore a pre-acquired database storing reference neurological activity data and reference cognitive task results data associated
with a neurological or psychiatric disorder of interest and associated with the pre-
determined cognitive task, for a population of people ([0028]);
compare the patient’s activity data and task results data with the reference
activity data and reference task results data ([0027]—[0028] & [0044]); and
Although strongly implied, Hubbard does not explicitly teach
“provide an output to a user interface-based on the comparison”.
Gurevich, however, teaches
` provide an output to a user interface-based on the comparison (Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “user-interface comparison” facility as taught by Gurevich in the arrangement of Hubbard.
The justification for this modification would be to provide a quick diagnosis—comparing the database to current input data—and making that diagnosis quickly available to the user.
Regarding claim 2
Hubbard in view of Gurevich teach the processing arrangement of claim 1, wherein the processing
Hubbard, applied to claim 2, further teaches
arrangement is further adapted to derive a diagnostic indicator for the neurological or psychiatric disorder of interest based on the comparison ([0048]),
Gurevich, applied to claim 2, further teaches
and to provide the diagnostic indicator as the output to the user interface (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 3
Hubbard in view of Gurevich teach the processing arrangement of claim 1,
Gurevich, applied to claim 3, further teaches
wherein the output to the user interface is indicative of the results of the comparison (Claim 1, the images are compared, and then the result of this comparison is outputted to user interface).
Regarding claim 7
Hubbard in view of Gurevich teach the processing arrangement of claim 1,
Hubbard, applied to claim 7, further teaches
wherein
the database comprises at least a first database portion which contains data associated with a first population of people who do not suffer from the neurological or psychiatric disorder of interest, and a second database portion which contains data associated with a second population of people who do suffer from the neurological or psychiatric disorder ([0028], the database contains both “normal” that are not impaired and “abnormal”, [0048] & [0083] & [0012]).
Regarding claim 8
Hubbard in view of Gurevich teach the processing arrangement of claim 1,
Hubbard
Wherein
the reference activity data and reference task results data comprise statistical data pre-computed from activity data and task results data for a population of people ([0048] & [0083] & [0012]).
Regarding claim 12
Hubbard in view of Gurevich teach the processing arrangement of claim 1,
Hubbard, applied to claim 12, further teaches
wherein the processing arrangement is further adapted to:
apply a selection algorithm ([0086]) to determine a new cognitive test to be
administered to the patient in dependence upon the obtained cognitive task results and/or in dependence upon the obtained neurological activity data ([0008] & [0048]);
retrieve from the datastore a database containing reference activity data
and reference cognitive task results data associated with the selected cognitive task ([0028]);
generate control signals for controlling a patient interface control module
to administer the selected cognitive task and for controlling an MRI imaging apparatus to obtain second fMRI data of the patient while the selected cognitive task is being administered ([0028] & [0037]).
Regarding claim 13
Hubbard in view of Gurevich teach the processing arrangement of claim 1,
Hubbard, applied to claim 13, further teaches
wherein the obtaining the fMRI data comprises the processing arrangement generating a control signal for controlling an MRI imaging apparatus to acquire the
fMRI data ([0052], the fMRI data is collected with processor which uses control signals).
Regarding claim 14
Hubbard in view of Gurevich teach the processing arrangement of claim 1,
Hubbard, applied to claim 14, further teaches
A system ([0012])
an MRI imaging apparatus operatively coupled with the processing
arrangement for acquiring fMRI data of the patient ([0003] & [0011]).
Regarding claim 15
Hubbard discloses
A computer program product comprising computer program ([0088]—[0089]) code stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium ([0090]), wherein configured,
when run a processor which is operatively coupled to an MRI imaging apparatus and a user interface, to cause-causes the processor to perform a method ([0046]) comprising:
obtaining functional MRI (fMRI) data for a patient corresponding to one or
more areas of the brain ([0027]),
wherein the fMRI data is acquired while the patient is performing a pre-determined cognitive task ([0027]);
obtaining cognitive task results data for the patient, corresponding to the
cognitive task administered while acquiring the fMRI data ([0011]);
deriving from the acquired fMRI data neurological activity data ([0005]—[0008]);
retrieving from a datastore a pre-acquired database storing reference neurological activity data and reference cognitive task results data associated with a neurological or psychiatric disorder of interest and with the pre-determined cognitive task, for a population of people ([0028]);
comparing the patient's activity data and cognitive task results data with the reference activity data and reference cognitive task results data ([0027]—[0028] & [0044]); and
Although strongly implied, Hubbard does not disclose
“providing an output to a user interface based on the comparison”.
Gurevich, however, teaches
providing an output to a user interface based on the comparison (Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “user-interface comparison” facility as taught by Gurevich in the arrangement of Hubbard.
The justification for this modification would be to provide a quick diagnosis—comparing the database to current input data—and making that diagnosis quickly available to the user.
Claim(s)4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbard (US-20140275960-A1) in view of Gurevich (RU-2003133170-A) in view Hamilton (CN-103997961-A).
Regarding claim 4
Hubbard in view of Gurevich teach the processing arrangement of claim 1,
Hubbard in view of Gurevich do not teach
“wherein the neurological activity data is blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) contrast data”.
Hamilton, however, teaches
wherein the neurological activity data is blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) contrast data ([0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “BOLD contrast data” as taught by Hamilton in the arrangement of Hubbard in view of Gurevich.
The justification for this modification would be to measure baseline of kidney tissue oxygenation.
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbard (US-20140275960-A1) in view of Gurevich (RU-2003133170-A) in view of Dodel (EP-1944315-A1).
Regarding claim 5
Hubbard in view of Gurevich teach the processing arrangement of claim 1,
Hubbard in view of Gurevich do not teach
“wherein
the datastore stores a plurality of different databases, each respectively storing reference activity data and reference cognitive task results data associated with a different specific combination of a neurological disorder of interest and a cognitive task administered”.
Dodel, however, teaches
the datastore stores a plurality of different databases, each respectively storing reference activity data and reference cognitive task results data associated with a different specific combination of a neurological disorder of interest and a cognitive task administered (¶ 5 under 5) Overview of analytical strategy and methods for sequence determination of Aβ-autoantibodies & ¶ 9 under Description of Related Art).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “plural data bases with
different disorders” as taught by Dodel in the arrangement of Hubbard in view of Gurevich.
The justification for this modification would be to expand the database capability to hold more information on different psychological disorders.
Regarding claim 6
Hubbard in view of Gurevich in view of Dodel teach the processing arrangement of claim 5,
Hubbard, applied to claim 6, further teaches
wherein the processing
arrangement is adapted to:
obtain a plurality of fMRI data sets for the patient ([0076]), each acquired while a different cognitive task is administered to the patient ([0011]),
obtain cognitive task results for the patient for each administered cognitive
task ([0011]—[0012]);
retrieve from the datastore a database associated with each different cognitive task, and further associated with the neurological or psychiatric disorder of interest ([0006] & [0027]);
compare, for each cognitive task, activity data derived from the corresponding fMRI data set with reference activity data in the corresponding
retrieved database, and comparing the cognitive task results with the reference cognitive task results in said corresponding database ([0028] & [0036]).
Claim(s)9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbard (US-20140275960-A1) in view of Gurevich (RU-2003133170-A) in view of Garcia (US-20200306495-A1).
Regarding claim 9
Hubbard in view of Gurevich teach the processing arrangement of claim 1,
Hubbard in view of Gurevich do not teach
“wherein the processing arrangement is adapted to update the database based on the obtained activity data for the patient, and the task results data for the patient”.
Garcia, however, teaches
wherein the processing arrangement is adapted to update the database based on the obtained activity data for the patient, and the task results data for the patient ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the facility of “updated database” as taught by Garcia in the arrangement of Hubbard in view of Gurevich.
The justification for this modification would be to update the database based on evolving information about the patient.
Claim(s)10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbard (US-20140275960-A1) in view of Gurevich (RU-2003133170-A) in view of Morimura (US-10541807-B1).
Regarding claim 10
Hubbard in view of Gurevich teach the processing arrangement of claim 1,
Hubbard in view of Gurevich do not teach
“wherein the data in the database are stratified based on one or more demographic classifications of the population of people to whom the data pertain”.
Morimura, however, teaches
wherein the data in the database are stratified based on one or more demographic classifications of the population of people to whom the data pertain (¶ 4 – 6 under DETAILED DESCRIPTION).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “demographic information” as taught by Morimura in the arrangement of Hubbard in view of Gurevich.
The justification for this modification would be to correlate and see if members of same demographic group are prone to the same medical anomalies
Regarding claim 11
Hubbard in view of Gurevich in view of Morimura teach the processing arrangement of claim 10,
Morimura, applied to claim 11, further teaches
wherein the processing arrangement is further adapted to obtain an
indication of the one or more demographic classifications for the patient (¶ 10 above “Claims”); and
wherein the processing arrangement is adapted to filter the database
according to the demographic classification of the patient before performing the comparison (¶ 4 below DETAILED DESCRIPTION).
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 at 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.
/Frederick Wenderoth/
Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852