DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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
I. Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I including claims 1-13 and 19 and new claims 24-29 in the reply filed on 04/23/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 14-18 and 20-23 were cancelled.
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.
4. Claim 1-13, 19 and 24-29 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.
5. Claim 1 is directed to “determining at least one diffusion gradient direction; determining at least one scanning direction sequence based on the at least one diffusion gradient direction, wherein each of the at least one scanning direction sequence includes at least one target scanning direction ... determine a fiber tracking image of the target object”, which are mental-steps/mathematical-calculations that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A method for diffusion tensor imaging, implemented on a computing device having at least one processor and at least one storage device, the method comprising: obtaining at least one set of scanning data by scanning a target object based on the at least one scanning direction sequence, wherein the at least one set of scanning data is used ...” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Independent claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
5.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 1 is directed to a method for diffusion tensor imaging, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
5.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites: “determining at least one diffusion gradient direction; determining at least one scanning direction sequence based on the at least one diffusion gradient direction, wherein each of the at least one scanning direction sequence includes at least one target scanning direction ... determine a fiber tracking image of the target object”, which are mental-steps/mathematical-calculations that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
5.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 1 does not claim a particular machine because the storage device is not claimed with sufficient specificity and the computing device with a processor is simply a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the imaging context, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use of an MRI but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the MRI technology. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies that generates magnetic imaging, etc., and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to the technological field relative to systems and a methods for diffusion tensor imaging).
5.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites the additional element(s) “A method for diffusion tensor imaging, implemented on a computing device having at least one processor and at least one storage device, the method comprising: obtaining at least one set of scanning data by scanning a target object based on the at least one scanning direction sequence, wherein the at least one set of scanning data is used ...” of which when evaluated individually and as a whole, it is concluded that are/is simply mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea and/or routine and/or conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references used in the rejections below, and prior art made of record below, and on the IDS and the prior art references used in the International Written Opinion dated 16 December 2021 for application PCT/CN2022/138050, which was submitted via IDS). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
6. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 2 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
7. Claim 3 depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 3 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
8. Claim depends on claim 4 that depends on 3 depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 4 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
9. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 5 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
10. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 6 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
11. Claim 7 on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 7 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
12. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 8 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
13. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 9 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
14. Claim 10 depends on claim 9 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 10 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
15. Claim 11 depends on claim 9 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 11 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
16. Claim 12 depends on claim 9 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 12 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
17. Claim 13 depends on 12 that depends on claim on 9 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 13 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
19. Claim 24 depends on claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 24 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 24 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
20. Claim 25 depends on claim 24 depends on claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 25 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 25 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
21. Claim 26 depends on claim 24 depends on claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 26 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 26 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
22. Claim 27 depends on claim 24 depends on claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 27 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 27 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
23. Claim 19 is directed to “determining at least one diffusion gradient direction; determining at least one scanning direction sequence based on the at least one diffusion gradient direction, wherein each of the at least one scanning direction sequence includes at least one target scanning direction ... determine a fiber tracking image of the target object”, which are mental-steps/mathematical-calculations that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer instructions, wherein when a computer reads the computer instructions in the storage medium, the computer implements a method for diffusion tensor imaging, the method comprising: obtaining at least one set of scanning data by scanning a target object based on the at least one scanning direction sequence, wherein the at least one set of scanning data is used ...” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Independent claim 19 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
23.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 19 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a method for diffusion tensor imaging, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine and process (Step 1: YES).
23.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 19 recites: “determining at least one diffusion gradient direction; determining at least one scanning direction sequence based on the at least one diffusion gradient direction, wherein each of the at least one scanning direction sequence includes at least one target scanning direction ... determine a fiber tracking image of the target object”, which are mental-steps/mathematical-calculations that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
23.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 19 does not claim a particular machine because the storage medium is not claimed with sufficient specificity and the computing device with a processor is simply a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the imaging context, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use of an MRI but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the MRI technology. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies that generates magnetic imaging, etc., and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to the technological field relative to systems and a methods for diffusion tensor imaging).
23.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 19 recites the additional element(s) “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer instructions, wherein when a computer reads the computer instructions in the storage medium, the computer implements a method for diffusion tensor imaging, the method comprising: obtaining at least one set of scanning data by scanning a target object based on the at least one scanning direction sequence, wherein the at least one set of scanning data is used...” of which when evaluated individually and as a whole, it is concluded that are/is simply mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea and/or routine and/or conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references used in the rejections below, and prior art made of record below, and on the IDS and the prior art references used in the International Written Opinion dated 16 December 2021 for application PCT/CN2022/138050, which was submitted via IDS). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
24. Claim 28 is directed to “determining at least one diffusion gradient direction; determining at least one scanning direction sequence based on the at least one diffusion gradient direction, wherein each of the at least one scanning direction sequence includes at least one target scanning direction ... determine a fiber tracking image of the target object”, which are mental-steps/mathematical-calculations that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A system, comprising: at least one storage device storing a set of instructions for diffusion tensor imaging; and at least one processor configured to communicate with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to direct the system to perform operations including: obtaining at least one set of scanning data by scanning a target object based on the at least one scanning direction sequence, wherein the at least one set of scanning data is used ...” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of g28eneric computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Independent claim 28 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
24.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 28 is directed to a system, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
24.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 28 recites: “determining at least one diffusion gradient direction; determining at least one scanning direction sequence based on the at least one diffusion gradient direction, wherein each of the at least one scanning direction sequence includes at least one target scanning direction ... determine a fiber tracking image of the target object”, which are mental-steps/mathematical-calculations that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
24.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 28 does not claim a particular machine because the storage device is not claimed with sufficient specificity and a processor is simply a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the imaging context, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use of an MRI but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the MRI technology. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies that generates magnetic imaging, etc., and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to the technological field relative to systems and a methods for diffusion tensor imaging).
24.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 28 recites the additional element(s) “A system, comprising: at least one storage device storing a set of instructions for diffusion tensor imaging; and at least one processor configured to communicate with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to direct the system to perform operations including: obtaining at least one set of scanning data by scanning a target object based on the at least one scanning direction sequence, wherein the at least one set of scanning data is used ...” of which when evaluated individually and as a whole, it is concluded that are/is simply mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea and/or routine and/or conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references used in the rejections below, and prior art made of record below, and on the IDS and the prior art references used in the International Written Opinion dated 16 December 2021 for application PCT/CN2022/138050, which was submitted via IDS). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
25. Claim 29 depends on claim 28, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 29 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 29 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Examiner’s Note
26. All the words in the language of the claims of which the specifications do not provide a definition in the form stated in the MPEP, the examiner has interpreted them by their plain meanings, pursuant to the MPEP 2111.01 “Plain Meaning” and MPEP 2173.01.
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 of this title, 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.
27. Claim(s) 1-4, 19 and 28-29 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHEN (Pub. No.: US 2020/0182954 hereinafter mentioned as “Shen”) in view of Zhong (Pub. No.: US 2020/0096592 hereinafter mentioned as “Zhong”).
As per claim 1, Shen discloses:
A method for diffusion tensor imaging, implemented on a computing device having at least one processor and at least one storage device (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use. However, see [0105]), the method comprising:
determining at least one diffusion gradient direction (Fig. 7A, see the step 710. Also see [0106], abstract and/or claim-10);
determining at least one scanning direction sequence based on the at least one diffusion gradient direction, wherein each of the at least one scanning direction sequence includes at least one target scanning direction (Fig. 7A, see the step 720. Also see [0108]-[0109] and [0106], abstract and/or claim-10); and
obtaining at least one set of scanning data by scanning a target object (Fig. 7A, see the step 720. Also see [0109] and [0120], abstract and/or claim-10) based on the at least one scanning direction sequence (Fig. 7A, see the step 720. Also see [0108]-[0109] and [0106], abstract and/or claim-10),
wherein the at least one set of scanning data is used to determine an image of the target object (Fig. 7A, see the step 720. Also see [0120], [0109] and abstract and/or claim-10).
Shen discloses the scanning data and determination of an image as disclosed above but does not explicitly disclose that it is a fiber tracking image.
However, Zhong further discloses:
wherein the at least one set of scanning data is used to determine a fiber tracking image of the target object (Fig see [0031]-[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the “fiber tracking image” disclosed by Zhong into Shen, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by providing a fiber tracking method used to improve the efficiency of magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging and the efficiency of fiber tracking and lower the cost (Zhong, Paragraph [0004]).
Furthermore, Shen states that “Although the above disclosure discusses through various examples what is currently considered to be a variety of useful embodiments of the disclosure, it is to be understood that such detail is solely for that purpose, and that the appended claims are not limited to the disclosed embodiments, but, on the contrary, are intended to cover modifications and equivalent arrangements that are within the spirit and scope of the disclosed embodiments” (Shen, Paragraph [0158]).
Furthermore, Zhong states that “The above-mentioned embodiments are only preferred embodiments of the present disclosure, but are not used to restrict the present disclosure. Without departing from the spirit and principle of the present disclosure, modifications, equivalent replacements, and improvements should all fall within the scope of protection of the present disclosure” (Zhong, Paragraph [0086]).
As per claim 2, the combination of Shen and Zhong discloses the method of claim 1 as described above.
Shen further discloses:
wherein the determining at least one scanning direction sequence based on the at least one diffusion gradient direction (Fig. 7A, see the step 720. Also see [0108]-[0109] and [0106], abstract and/or claim-10) includes:
obtaining a user instruction, wherein the user instruction includes indicative information of the at least one target scanning direction (Fig. 7A, see the step 720. Also see [0071], [0108]-[0109] and [0106], abstract and/or claim-10); and
determining the at least one scanning direction sequence based on the user instruction (Fig. 7A, see the step 720. Also see [0071], [0108]-[0109] and [0106], abstract and/or claim-10).
As per claim 3, the combination of Shen and Zhong discloses the method of claim 2 as described above.
Shen further discloses:
wherein the at least one diffusion gradient direction are determined based on a total count of the at least one diffusion gradient direction (Fig. 7A, see the step 720. Also see [0108]-[0109] and [0106], abstract and/or claim-10), and the method further comprises:
generating a distribution map of the at least one diffusion gradient direction in response to obtaining the total count of the at least one diffusion gradient direction; and annotating, based on the user instruction, the at least one target scanning direction on the distribution map (see [0068] and [0071]. The k-space data acquisition).
As per claim 4, the combination of Shen and Zhong discloses the method of claim 3 as described above.
Shen further discloses:
wherein the user instruction includes the at least one target scanning direction which is selected by a user on the distribution map (see [0068] and [0071]. The k-space data acquisition by the operator).
As per claim 19, Shen discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer instructions, wherein when a computer reads the computer instructions in the storage medium, the computer implements a method for diffusion tensor imaging (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use. However, see Fig. 1 and [0105]), the method comprising:
determining at least one diffusion gradient direction (Fig. 7A, see the step 710. Also see [0106], abstract and/or claim-10);
determining at least one scanning direction sequence based on the at least one diffusion gradient direction, wherein each of the at least one scanning direction sequence includes at least one target scanning direction (Fig. 7A, see the step 720. Also see [0108]-[0109] and [0106], abstract and/or claim-10); and
obtaining at least one set of scanning data by scanning a target object (Fig. 7A, see the step 720. Also see [0109] and [0120], abstract and/or claim-10) based on the at least one scanning direction sequence (Fig. 7A, see the step 720. Also see [0108]-[0109] and [0106], abstract and/or claim-10),
wherein the at least one set of scanning data is used to determine an image of the target object (Fig. 7A, see the step 720. Also see [0120], [0109] and abstract and/or claim-10).
Shen discloses the scanning data and determination of an image as disclosed above but does not explicitly disclose that it is a fiber tracking image.
However, Zhong further discloses:
wherein the at least one set of scanning data is used to determine a fiber tracking image of the target object (Fig see [0031]-[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the “fiber tracking image” disclosed by Zhong into Shen, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by providing a fiber tracking method used to improve the efficiency of magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging and the efficiency of fiber tracking and lower the cost (Zhong, Paragraph [0004]).
As per claim 28, Shen discloses:
A system (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use. However, see Fig. 1 and [0105]), the comprising:
at least one storage device storing a set of instructions for diffusion tensor imaging (Fig. 1, see the 150. Also see [0105], abstract and/or claim-10); and
at least one processor configured to communicate with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions (Fig. 1, see the 140. Also see [0105], abstract and/or claim-10), the at least one processor is configured to direct the system to perform operations including:
determining at least one diffusion gradient direction (Fig. 7A, see the step 710. Also see [0106], abstract and/or claim-10);
determining at least one scanning direction sequence based on the at least one diffusion gradient direction, wherein each of the at least one scanning direction sequence includes at least one target scanning direction (Fig. 7A, see the step 720. Also see [0108]-[0109] and [0106], abstract and/or claim-10); and
obtaining at least one set of scanning data by scanning a target object (Fig. 7A, see the step 720. Also see [0109] and [0120], abstract and/or claim-10) based on the at least one scanning direction sequence (Fig. 7A, see the step 720. Also see [0108]-[0109] and [0106], abstract and/or claim-10),
wherein the at least one set of scanning data is used to determine an image of the target object (Fig. 7A, see the step 720. Also see [0120], [0109] and abstract and/or claim-10).
Shen discloses the scanning data and determination of an image as disclosed above but does not explicitly disclose that it is a fiber tracking image.
However, Zhong further discloses:
wherein the at least one set of scanning data is used to determine a fiber tracking image of the target object (Fig see [0031]-[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the “fiber tracking image” disclosed by Zhong into Shen, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by providing a fiber tracking method used to improve the efficiency of magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging and the efficiency of fiber tracking and lower the cost (Zhong, Paragraph [0004]).
As per claim 29, the combination of Shen and Zhong discloses the system of claim 28 as described above.
Shen further discloses wherein the operations further include:
obtaining a user instruction, wherein the user instruction includes indicative information of the at least one target scanning direction (Fig. 7A, see the step 720. Also see [0071], [0108]-[0109] and [0106], abstract and/or claim-10); and
determining the at least one scanning direction sequence based on the user instruction (Fig. 7A, see the step 720. Also see [0071], [0108]-[0109] and [0106], abstract and/or claim-10).
28. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Song (Pub. No.: US 2023/0355128) teaches “Diffusion-weighted data are acquired with an MRI system. From the diffusion-weighted data, a comprehensive diffusion tensor distribution (CDTD) is generated. The provides a proportional weighting, at the voxel level, of different diffusion tensors that could describe the water diffusion occurring in the voxel. The CDTD provides insight into tissue microstructure without making assumptions about the structure of a diffusion tensor used to characterize diffusion occurring in tissues of interest.” (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 8:30am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (571)272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights