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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/30/206 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-17, Applicant argues that the invention recited in Claim 1 improves the functioning of a computer, as does 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). 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, 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 using the numerical value before update of the magnetization, without using the numerical value before update of the partial differential, and compute the numerical value after update of the magnetization, and execute the arithmetic operation of the update formula by using the numerical value before update of the partial differential in the computation target direction, without using 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, and compute the numerical value after update of the partial differential in the computation target direction.
Claims 3-15 and 17 depending from claim 1 are allowed for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, 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 using the numerical value before update of the magnetization, without using the numerical value before update of the partial differential, and computing the numerical value after update of the magnetization, and executing the arithmetic operation of the update formula by using the numerical value before update of the partial differential in the computation target direction, without using 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, and computing the numerical value after update of the partial differential in the computation target direction.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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