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 § 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 3-10 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 3, as presented, ends with a comma, not the required period. Examiner cannot assume that it is a simple typographical error or a more substantial error involving missing elements. Therefore, the claim and all subsequent dependent claims are necessarily unclear. Clarification is required.
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.
(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.
Claims 1 & 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Uhlemann (EP # 3381353).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Uhlemann teaches:
A recommender system, comprising:
- an input unit (Fig. 1 Element 116. Paragraph 0054.);
- a processing unit (Fig. 1 Element 130. Paragraph 0056.); and
- an output unit (Fig. 1 Element 116. Paragraph 0054.);
wherein the input unit is configured to receive data comprising information about a plurality of pre-tests provided to a patient and associated pre-test results, wherein the plurality of pre-tests is performed prior to an MRI scan session, and wherein the plurality of pre-tests comprises a cognitive test, a sensorimotor test, or a combination thereof (Paragraph 0017.);
wherein the processing unit is configured to:
- generate, based on the received data, a cognitive profile of the patient indicative of an individual's pattern of relative strengths and difficulties across several cognitive domains (Paragraph 0018.),
- determine, based on the cognitive profile of the patient, a task implementation for the MRI scan session (Paragraph 0018.), and
- provide, via the output unit, a recommendation of the determined task implementation for the MRI scan session (Paragraph 0044 wherein the display implies the necessary output. See Fig. 1 Element 128.).
PNG
media_image1.png
688
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Uhlemann teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Uhlemann teaches a magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, imaging system (100) (Fig. 1 Element 100. Paragraph 0051.), comprising: - a recommender system (10) according to claim 1 for providing a recommendation of a task implementation in the MRI scan session (Fig. 1 Element 130. Paragraph 0056.); and - an MRI scanner (20) configured to acquire image data of a patient based on the recommendation provided by the recommender system (Fig. 1 Element 100. See paragraphs 0051-0053.).
Regarding Independent claim 13, Uhlemann teaches:
A computer-implemented method (200), comprising:
- receiving (210) data comprising information about a plurality of pre-tests provided to the patient and associated pre-test results, wherein the plurality of pre-tests is performed prior to an MRI scan session, and wherein the plurality of pre-tests comprises a cognitive test, a sensorimotor test, or a combination thereof (Fig. 1 Element 116. Paragraph 0054.);
- generating (220), based on the received data, a cognitive profile of the patient, wherein the cognitive profile indicates an individual's pattern of relative strengths and difficulties across several cognitive domains (Paragraph 0018.);
- determining (230), based on the cognitive profile of the patient, a task implementation in the MRI scan session (Paragraph 0018.); and
- providing (240) a recommendation of the determined task implementation (Paragraph 0044 wherein the display implies the necessary output. See Fig. 1 Element 128.).
Regarding claim 14, Uhlemann teaches all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Uhlemann teaches a computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by one or more processing units, cause the one or more processing units to carry out the steps of the method of claim 13 (Fig. 1 Element 130. Paragraph 0056.).
Regarding claim 15, Uhlemann teaches all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Uhlemann teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon the computer program product of claim 14 (Fig. 1 Element 130. Paragraph 0056.).
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.
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uhlemann (EP # 3381353) in view of Gadagkar et al (U.S. PGPub # 2007/0167724).
Regarding claim 2, Uhlemann teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Uhlemann does not explicitly teach the processing unit is further configured to determine, based on the cognitive profile of the patient, whether a brain scan is necessary, and to provide, via the output unit, a recommendation of whether the patient needs a brain scan.
Gadagkar teaches the processing unit is further configured to determine, based on the cognitive profile of the patient, whether a brain scan is necessary, and to provide, via the output unit, a recommendation of whether the patient needs a brain scan (See paragraph 0005 wherein this is a description of “planning to solve the problem of how to evidence specific functional areas of the user's brain.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Gadagkar to the teachings of Uhlemann such that the processing unit is further configured to determine, based on the cognitive profile of the patient, whether a brain scan is necessary, and to provide, via the output unit, a recommendation of whether the patient needs a because this would be cheap to implement and better for the patient.
Regarding claim 3, Uhlemann & Gadagkar teach all elements of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
Uhlemann teaches if it is determined that the patient needs a brain scan, the processing unit is further configured to determine, based on the cognitive profile of the patient, at least one task for the patient to be performed in the MRI scan session, and to provide, via the output unit, a recommendation of the at least one task, (See paragraph 0015 wherein breathing techniques are disclosed.).
Regarding claim 4, Uhlemann & Gadagkar teach all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Uhlemann teaches the processing unit is further configured to determine, based on the cognitive profile of the patient, a type and a task parameter of the at least one task, and to provide, via the output unit, the type and the task parameter of the at least one task (See paragraph 0018 wherein it discloses “a predefined threshold value.”).
Regarding claim 5, Uhlemann & Gadagkar teach all elements of claim 4, upon which this claim depends.
Uhlemann teaches the type of the at least one task comprises a task or a combination of tasks measuring one or more cognitive and sensorimotor functions (See paragraph 0017.).
Regarding claim 6, Uhlemann & Gadagkar teach all elements of claim 4, upon which this claim depends.
Uhlemann teaches the task parameter comprises a difficulty level, a stimulus type, an intensity, a task duration, or any combination thereof (See paragraph 0019 wherein a stress level is disclosed. See paragraph 0059 wherein the breathing pattern meets the metes and bounds of an intensity and duration.).
Regarding claim 7, Uhlemann & Gadagkar teach all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Uhlemann teaches the at least one determined task comprises a series of tasks; and wherein the processing unit is configured to determine, based on a pre-defined selection protocol, an order of the tasks to be performed in the MRI scan session, and provide, via the output unit, a recommendation of the order of the tasks (See paragraphs 0015-0019 wherein various tasks and the effects of those tasks are determined and measured respectively. Stress levels are specifically disclosed in paragraph 0019. See paragraph 0059 wherein the breathing pattern meets the metes and bounds of an intensity and duration.).
Regarding claim 8, Uhlemann & Gadagkar teach all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Uhlemann does not explicitly teach the processing unit is configured to identify, based on the cognitive profile of the patient, a potential cognitive problem of the patient, to select a type of scan that is suitable to detect brain abnormalities that underlie the patient's potential cognitive problem, and to provide, via the output unit, a recommendation of the type of scan.
Gadagkar teaches the processing unit is configured to identify, based on the cognitive profile of the patient, a potential cognitive problem of the patient, to select a type of scan that is suitable to detect brain abnormalities that underlie the patient's potential cognitive problem, and to provide, via the output unit, a recommendation of the type of scan (See paragraph 0005 wherein this is a description of “planning to solve the problem of how to evidence specific functional areas of the user's brain.”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Gadagkar to the teachings of Uhlemann such that the processing unit is configured to identify, based on the cognitive profile of the patient, a potential cognitive problem of the patient, to select a type of scan that is suitable to detect brain abnormalities that underlie the patient's potential cognitive problem, and to provide, via the output unit, a recommendation of the type of scan because this would be cheap to implement and better for the patient.
Regarding claim 9, Uhlemann & Gadagkar teach all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Uhlemann does not explicitly teach the processing unit is configured to identify, based on the cognitive profile of the patient, a potential cognitive problem of the patient, to determine, based on the determined potential cognitive problem of the patient, a brain area most likely to be affected, and to provide, via the output unit, a recommendation of the brain area to be scanned.
Gadagkar teaches the processing unit is configured to identify, based on the cognitive profile of the patient, a potential cognitive problem of the patient, to determine, based on the determined potential cognitive problem of the patient, a brain area most likely to be affected, and to provide, via the output unit, a recommendation of the brain area to be scanned (See paragraph 0005 wherein this is a description of “planning to solve the problem of how to evidence specific functional areas of the user's brain.”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Gadagkar to the teachings of Uhlemann such that the processing unit is configured to identify, based on the cognitive profile of the patient, a potential cognitive problem of the patient, to determine, based on the determined potential cognitive problem of the patient, a brain area most likely to be affected, and to provide, via the output unit, a recommendation of the brain area to be scanned because this would be cheap to implement and better for the patient.
Regarding claim 10, Uhlemann & Gadagkar teach all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Uhlemann teaches the input unit is further configured to receive MRI data acquired in the MRI scan session using the at least one recommended task (Fig. 1 Element 116. Paragraph 0054.); and
Uhlemann does not explicitly teach wherein the processing unit is configured to determine, based on the MRI data, at least one modified task for a next MRI scan session, and to provide, via the output unit, a recommendation of the at least one modified task for the next MRI scan session.
Gadagkar teaches the input unit is further configured to receive MRI data acquired in the MRI scan session using the at least one recommended task; and wherein the processing unit is configured to determine, based on the MRI data, at least one modified task for a next MRI scan session, and to provide, via the output unit, a recommendation of the at least one modified task for the next MRI scan session (See paragraphs 0005.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Gadagkar to the teachings of Uhlemann such that the input unit is further configured to receive MRI data acquired in the MRI scan session using the at least one recommended task; and wherein the processing unit is configured to determine, based on the MRI data, at least one modified task for a next MRI scan session, and to provide, via the output unit, a recommendation of the at least one modified task for the next MRI scan session because this would be cheap and efficient.
Regarding claim 11, Uhlemann teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Uhlemann does not explicitly teach the processing unit is configured to apply a trained machine-learning model to determine the task implementation.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the processing unit be configured to apply a trained machine-learning model to determine the task implementation because this machine learning would allow the system to self-optimize and make itself more efficient and make probability assessments faster.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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 on 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858