CTNF 18/770,330 CTNF 74775 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Although, the claim recites an abstract idea (mathematical concepts and mental processes). However, it is integrated into a practical application that improves the functioning of a model in a specific, real-world technical environment, and uses specific hardware and targeted retraining techniques. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: estimation module and reconstruction module in claims 1, 3-4, 7 and 11-12 Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 4-8, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Splittoff et al (11,187,769) . Regarding claims 1 and 11 Splittoff discloses an input for receiving motion corrupted k-space data for the subject acquired using an MRI system(note fig. 1, block S10, receive subset k-space data, col. 4 lines 39-51 and col. 6 lines 40-46, describes corrupted k-space data) A motion parameter estimation module coupled to the input and configured to estimate motion parameters based on the motion corrupted k-space data (note fig. 1, block S10, col. 7 lines 44-46, motion parameters are estimated based on k-space data) A motion correction neural network coupled to the input and the motion parameter estimation module, and configured to generate motion corrected k-space data based on the motion corrupted k-space data and the estimated motion parameters (note fig. 2, block S2 and col. 7 lines 65- col. 8 lines 4); and A reconstruction module coupled to the motion correction neural network and Configured to generate a motion corrected image from the motion corrected k-space data (note col. 11 lines 54-56 and col. 13 lines 10-12 (note col. 9 lines 9-12, lines cite reconstruction, further motion correction). Regarding claims 2, 17 and 18 Splittoff discloses, Wherein the motion correction neural network comprises: As to claims 2 and 17, A first subnetwork configured to receive the estimated motion parameters and generate a set of weights based on the estimated motion parameters (note fig. 4, block 8, estimation unit, note col. 9 lines 28-35); As to claims 2 and 18, A second subnetwork coupled to the input and the second subnetwork and configured to include the weights from the first subnetwork and to generate the motion corrected k-space data from the motion corrupted k-space data (note fig. 4, block 10, correction unit, note col. 9 lines 36-45). Regarding claims 4 and 12 Splittoff discloses, Wherein the motion parameter estimation module is further configured to optimize the estimated motion parameters using a data consistency loss and based on the motion corrupted k-space data and the motion corrected k-space data (note col. 5 lines 10-14, improving and increasing accuracy of estimation). Regarding claims 5 and 13 Splittoff discloses. Wherein the motion corrupted k-space data is acquired using a multi-shot acquisition (note col. 8 lines 5-10, MRI scan). Regarding claims 6 and 14 Splittoff discloses, Wherein the motion corrupted k-space data and the motion corrected k-space data are normalized based on a maximum intensity of the motion corrupted k-space data (note col. 8 lines 1-9). Regarding claims 7 and 15 Splittoff discloses, A display coupled to the reconstruction module and configured to display the motion corrected image (note col. 8 lines 18-37, examiner position is echo train provides display of signals). Regarding claims 8 and 16 Splittoff disclose, Wherein the motion correction neural network is a deep learning neural network (note col. 6 lines 5-10) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Splittoff et al (11,187,769) in view of Leontaris (11,044,454) . Regarding claims 3 and 10, Splittoff does not clearly disclose the motion parameter estimation module comprises a plurality of interleaved layers combining frequency and image space convolutions. Leontaris discloses motion parameter estimation module comprises a plurality of interleaved layers combining frequency and image space convolutions (note col. 9 lines 20-34, cite interleaving and enhancement layer). Splittoff and Leontaris are combinable because they are from the same field endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the features interleaved layers combining frequency and image space convolutions in the system Splittoff as evidenced by Leontaris. The suggestion/motivation for doing so provides improvement in compression and interview predictions of a scene (note Leontaris, col. 3 lines 5-8). It would have been obvious to combine Leontaris and Splittoff to obtain the invention as specified by claims 3 and 10 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Splittoff et al (11,187,769) in view of Mailhe et al (11,835,613) . Regarding claim 9 Splittoff does not clearly disclose wherein the first subnetwork is a hypernetwork. Mailhe discloses wherein the first subnetwork is a hypernetwork (note col. 7 lines 51- col. 8 lines 3, lines cite generative hypernetwork, i.e. a generative model). Splittoff and Mailhe are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a subnetwork as hypernetwork. The suggestion/motivation for doing so provides deviation of artifacts (note col. 1 lines 30-34). It would have been obvious to combine Mailhe with Splittoff to obtain the invention as specified by claim 9. Related Prior Art Dou et al (11,846,692) A motion correction neural network coupled to the input and the motion parameter estimation module, and configured to generate motion corrected k-space data based on the motion corrupted k-space data and the estimated motion parameters (note col. 20 lines 59-65, lines cite motion); Litwiller et al (12,045,917) an input for receiving motion corrupted k-space data for the subject acquired using an MRI system (note col. 3 lines 30-50). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY M DESIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-7449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-3:00pm. 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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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. G.D. April 14, 2026 /GREGORY M DESIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/770,330 Page 2 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/770,330 Page 3 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/770,330 Page 4 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/770,330 Page 5 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/770,330 Page 6 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/770,330 Page 7 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/770,330 Page 8 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/770,330 Page 9 Art Unit: 2676
Prosecution Insights