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.
Claim 25 is 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.
The scope of claim 25 is unclear. The claim recites dependency to the method of claim 1, however, claim 1 recites a system claim.
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 1-13 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite a trained artificial intelligence engine, a correction module, and an indication module. The claimed subject matter are directed towards data processing and computer program per se which does not constitute a statutory process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter. The claimed subject matter merely involves insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering/evaluating and performing mathematical calculations. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer and/or recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions and mathematical calculations that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Claims 14-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a method for MR imaging of brain ventricles without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the steps of detecting a plurality of edges of the cortex and determine a biparietal diameter value; detecting a plurality of frontal horn edges; and detecting, a plurality of occipital horn edges; determining at least one detect edge of the plurality of detected edges is associated with a non-ventricular body and update said edge to correspond to the applicable horn, determining a frontal horn diameter value; and determining a occipital horn diameter; and providing an indication on abnormal dilation of the patient’s brain ventricles based on at least one F value, at least one O value, and at least on BP value. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, performing well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, and recite the concepts of gathering and evaluating data, and performing mathematical calculations which can be performed as a mental step or on pen and paper. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because use of artificial intelligence is well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, amounting to no more than the judicial exception. The addition of general-purpose computer components alone to perform such steps is not sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patentable invention. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions of a computer (in this case, gathering and evaluating data, and performing mathematical calculations) that would be needed to apply the abstract idea via a computer. Merely using generic computer components to perform the above identified basic computer functions to practice or apply the judicial exception does not constitute a meaningful limitation that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 15-24 and 26 are dependent upon claim 14 and includes all the limitations of claim 14. Therefore, claims 15-24 and 26 recite the same abstract idea of gathering and evaluating data, and performing mathematical calculations which can be performed as a mental step or on pen and paper. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps recite mathematical operations and the use of artificial intelligence that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, recited at a high level of generality amounting to no more than the judicial exception. The addition of general-purpose computer components alone to perform such steps is not sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patentable invention. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions of a computer (in this case, neural networks and performing mathematical calculations) that would be needed to apply the abstract idea via a computer. Merely using generic computer components to perform the above identified basic computer functions to practice or apply the judicial exception does not constitute a meaningful limitation that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The closest prior art of record, Wang Yuli et al. (2023 – cited in IDS) discloses MR imaging of the brain detecting frontal horns; Kadaba Sridhar et al. (US 2024/0188915) discloses MR imaging of the brain measuring frontal horns; Shirai et al. (US 2022/0198652) discloses MRI imaging of the brain measuring anterior horns; and Yoo (US 2015/0178969) discloses in fetal measurements measuring a biparietal diameter. Although the prior art of record discloses measuring parameters related to the brain. The prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed combination of subject matter of measuring the combination of parameters and particularly, providing an indication on abnormal dilation of the patient’s brain ventricles based on the combination of parameters. Furthermore, although no prior art rejection has been made, the claims are not patentable as claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Anhtuan T Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
/PETER LUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights