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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-19, Applicant argues the invention recited in amended Claim 1 reduces computational time and computational resources. For example, claim 1 recites executing the arithmetic operation of the update formula by accessing a memory to read out the numerical value before update of the magnetization, without reading out the numerical value before update of the partial differential stored in the memory. See also paragraphs 29, 42, and 43. As such, the invention recited in Claim 1 uses less memory and computation and thus improves the functioning of a computer, similar to the invention at issue in Ex Parte Desjardins. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 1 integrates any purported abstract idea into a practical application and is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The examiner respectfully disagrees. According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG), if a claim limitation covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and/or mathematical calculations, then it falls within the "mathematical relationships" grouping of abstract ideas. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea). In addition, “our precedent is clear that merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.” Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015).16 Nor does “[u]sing a conventional computer to . . . store information . . . transform an abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.” In re Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 991 F. 1245, 1251–52 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Also, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner notes that when determining whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B the analysis takes into consideration whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Transformation and reduction of an article 'to a different state or thing' is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines." Bilski V. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 658, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (quoting Gottschalk V. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972)). See MPEP 2106.05(c). Furthermore, the additional elements recited in the claims merely recite the use of a generic computer to perform generic computer functions of computing mathematical concepts. These generic computer functions do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-19, the independent claims (claims 1 and 16) are directed, in part, to an apparatus and a method for magnetic resonance numerical simulation. Step 1 - First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1, 3-15 and 17-18 are directed to an apparatus, which falls under the statutory category of a machine and claims 16 and 19 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mathematical concept which includes formulas or calculations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to inputting, in regard to an isochromat, a numerical value before update of magnetization, and a numerical value before update of a partial differential for the magnetization in each of a spatial direction and/or an angular frequency direction; and execute an arithmetic operation of an update formula representing a time-dependent behavior of magnetic resonance, by using a part of the numerical values before update of the magnetization, and the numerical values before update of the partial differential, and compute, in regard to the isochromat, a numerical value after update of the magnetization, and a numerical value after update of the partial differential for the magnetization in a computation target direction of the spatial direction and/or the angular frequency direction, executing the arithmetic operation of the update formula by accessing a memory to read out the numerical value before update of the magnetization, without reading out the numerical value before update of the partial differential stored in the memory, and compute the numerical value after update of the magnetization, and executing the arithmetic operation of the update formula by accessing the memory to read out the numerical value before update of the partial differential in the computation target direction stored in the memory, without reading out the numerical value before update of the partial differential in a non-computation target direction of the spatial direction and/or the angular frequency direction stored in the memory, and compute the numerical value after update of the partial differential in the computation target direction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers a formula or calculation, the it falls under the "mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 recites additional elements apparatus and processing circuitry, independent claim 16 is directed to a method and includes no additional elements. These additional element in both steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function using a program) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant's specification in at least Fig. 1 and [0017-0018] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that "FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating a configuration example of a magnetic resonance numerical simulation apparatus 1 according to a first embodiment. As illustrated in FIG. 1, the magnetic resonance numerical simulation apparatus 1 is a computer including processing circuitry 11, a communication device 12, a display device 13, an input device 14 and a storage device 15. Data communication between the processing circuitry 11, communication device 12, display device 13, input device 14 and storage device 15 is executed via a bus. The processing circuitry 11 includes a processor such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit). An input function 111, a numerical computation function 112 and an output control function 113 are implemented by the processor starting a magnetic resonance numerical simulation program installed in the storage device 15 or the like. The functions 111 to 113 are not necessarily implemented by single processing circuitry. A plurality of independent processors may be combined to constitute processing circuitry, and the respective processors may implement the functions 111 to 113 by executing the magnetic resonance numerical simulation program. In addition, the functions 111 to 113 may be implemented as modules constituting the magnetic resonance numerical simulation program, or may be implemented as individual hardware." Examiner notes that because the specification describes the additional elements in general terms without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in light of Applicant's' specification, as cited in the instant office action. See Berkheimer Memo. The claims do not provide an inventive concept because the claims, in essence, merely recite various computer-based elements along with no more than mere instructions to implement the identified abstract idea using the computer- based elements. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere program instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing device is facilitating the abstract concept in not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1, 3-15 and 17-18, the prior art fails to specifically teach a magnetic resonance apparatus, comprising; processing circuitry configured to: input, in regard to an isochromat, a numerical value before update of magnetization, and a numerical value before update of a partial differential for the magnetization in each of a spatial direction and/or an angular frequency direction; and execute an arithmetic operation of an update formula representing a time- dependent behavior of magnetic resonance, by using a part of the numerical values before update of the magnetization, and the numerical values before update of the partial differential, and compute, in regard to the isochromat, a numerical value after update of the magnetization, and a numerical value after update of the partial differential for the magnetization in a computation target direction of the spatial direction and/or the angular frequency direction, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: execute the arithmetic operation of the update formula by accessing a memory to read out the numerical value before update of the magnetization, without reading out the numerical value before update of the partial differential stored in the memory, and compute the numerical value after update of the magnetization, and execute the arithmetic operation of the update formula by accessing the memory to read out the numerical value before update of the partial differential in the computation target direction stored in the memory, without reading out the numerical value before update of the partial differential in a non-computation target direction of the spatial direction and/or the angular frequency direction stored in the memory, and compute the numerical value after update of the partial differential in the computation target direction, in combination with all the limitations of the claims.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, the prior art fails to specifically teach a magnetic resonance method comprising: inputting, in regard to an isochromat, a numerical value before update of magnetization, and a numerical value before update of a partial differential for the magnetization in each of a spatial direction and/or an angular frequency direction; and executing an arithmetic operation of an update formula representing a time-dependent behavior of magnetic resonance by using a part of the numerical values before update of the magnetization and the numerical values before update of the partial differential, and computing, in regard to the isochromat, a numerical value after update of the magnetization, and a numerical value after update of the partial differential for the magnetization in a computation target direction of the spatial direction and/or the angular frequency direction wherein the method further comprises: executing the arithmetic operation of the update formula by accessing a memory to read out the numerical value before update of the magnetization stored in the memory, without reading out the numerical value before update of the partial differential stored in the memory, and computing the numerical value after update of the magnetization, and executing the arithmetic operation of the update formula by accessing the memory to read out the numerical value before update of the partial differential in the computation target direction stored in the memory, without reading out the numerical value before update of the partial differential in a non-computation target direction of the spatial direction and/or the angular frequency direction stored in the memory, and computing the numerical value after update of the partial differential in the computation target direction, in combination with all the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (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 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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights