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 .
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
Claim Objections
1. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
1.1. the abbreviation/acronym/term/symbol/variable “MRS” should be spelled out on its first appearance.
2. Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
2.1. the abbreviation/acronym/term/symbol/variable “MRS” should be spelled out on its first appearance.
3. Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
3.1. the abbreviation/acronym/term/symbol/variable “MRS” should be spelled out on its first appearance.
Appropriate correction is required. The examiner appreciates the assistance of the Applicant(s).
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 1-24 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 “... perform a regression calculation which applies the basis set to the acquired spectrum ...”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A spectrum analysis apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to: obtain an acquired spectrum through an MRS pulse sequence with respect to a subject; input a basis set including a plurality of spectrum bases respectively corresponding to a plurality of materials, the basis set including a plurality of basis fragments obtained by dividing, based on a predetermined criterion, a basis spectrum relating to a material of interest which is all or some of the materials; ... and output a result of spectrum analysis based on the regression calculation” 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 spectrum analysis apparatus, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (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: “... perform a regression calculation which applies the basis set to the acquired spectrum ...”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps 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 processing circuitry is not claimed with sufficient specificity and the spectrum analysis apparatus is simply a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the spectrum analysis context, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) 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 mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies using MRS, 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 using MRS).
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 spectrum analysis apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to: obtain an acquired spectrum through an MRS pulse sequence with respect to a subject; input a basis set including a plurality of spectrum bases respectively corresponding to a plurality of materials, the basis set including a plurality of basis fragments obtained by dividing, based on a predetermined criterion, a basis spectrum relating to a material of interest which is all or some of the materials; ... and output a result of spectrum analysis based on the regression calculation” 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, prior art made of record below, and on the 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 mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, 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 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 mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, 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 4 depends on claim 3 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 mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, 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 3 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 5 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, 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 mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, 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 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 7 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, 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 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 8 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, 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 8 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 9 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, 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 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 10 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, 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 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 mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, 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 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 mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, 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 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 mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, 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.
18. Claim 14 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 14 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 14 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 15 depends on claim 3 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 15 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 15 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 16 depends on claim 3 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 16 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 16 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 17 depends on claim 16 depends on claim 3 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 17 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 17 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 18 depends on claim 3 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 18 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 18 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 depends on claim 6 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 19 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 19 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.
24. Claim 20 depends on claim 6 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 20 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 20 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.
25. Claim 21 depends on claim 20 depends on claim 6 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 21 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 21 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.
26. Claim 22 depends on claim 6 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 22 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 22 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.
27. Claim 23 is directed to “... performing a regression calculation which applies the basis set to the acquired spectrum ...”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A spectrum analysis method comprising: obtaining an acquired spectrum of an MRS pulse sequence with respect to a subject; inputting a basis set including a plurality of spectrum bases respectively corresponding to a plurality of materials, the basis set including a plurality of basis fragments obtained by dividing, based on a predetermined criterion, a basis spectrum relating to a material of interest which is some or all of the materials; ... and outputting a result of spectrum analysis based on the regression calculation” 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 23 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
27.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 23 is directed to a spectrum analysis method, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
27.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 23 recites: “... performing a regression calculation which applies the basis set to the acquired spectrum ...”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps 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).
27.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 23 does not claim a particular machine. Furthermore, the spectrum analysis context, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) 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 mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies using MRS, 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 using MRS).
27.3. 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 23 recites the additional element(s) “A spectrum analysis method comprising: obtaining an acquired spectrum of an MRS pulse sequence with respect to a subject; input a basis set including a plurality of spectrum bases respectively corresponding to a plurality of materials, the basis set including a plurality of basis fragments obtained by dividing, based on a predetermined criterion, a basis spectrum relating to a material of interest which is all or some of the materials; ... and output a result of spectrum analysis based on the regression calculation” 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, prior art made of record below, and on the 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).
28. Claim 24 is directed to “... performing a regression calculation which applies the basis set to the acquired spectrum ...”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A non-transitory computer readable medium including computer executable instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: obtaining an acquired spectrum of an MRS pulse sequence with respect to a subject; inputting a basis set including a plurality of spectrum bases respectively corresponding to a plurality of materials, the basis set including a plurality of basis fragments obtained by dividing, based on a predetermined criterion, a basis spectrum relating to a material of interest which is some or all of the materials; ... and outputting a result of spectrum analysis based on the regression calculation” 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 24 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
28.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 23 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
28.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 24 recites: “... performing a regression calculation which applies the basis set to the acquired spectrum ...”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps 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).
28.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 24 does not claim a particular machine because the non-transitory computer readable medium is not claimed with sufficient specificity and the processor is simply a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the spectrum analysis context, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) 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 mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies using MRS, 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 using MRS).
28.3. 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 24 recites the additional element(s) “A non-transitory computer readable medium including computer executable instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: processing circuitry configured to: input a basis set including a plurality of spectrum bases respectively corresponding to a plurality of materials, the basis set including a plurality of basis fragments obtained by dividing, based on a predetermined criterion, a basis spectrum relating to a material of interest which is all or some of the materials; ... and output a result of spectrum analysis based on the regression calculation” 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, prior art made of record below, and on the 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).
Examiner’s Note
29. 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.
30. Claim(s) 1 and 23-24 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKESHIMA (Pub. No.: US 2022/0065963 hereinafter mentioned as “Takeshima”).
As per claim 1, Takeshima discloses:
A spectrum analysis apparatus (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use. However, Fig. 1, see the host computer 50. Also see [0036]) comprising processing circuitry (Fig. 1, see the processing circuitry 51. Also see [0060]) configured to:
obtain an acquired spectrum through an MRS pulse sequence (Fig. 4, see the steps S1-S5. Also see [0065]-[0067] and [0060]) with respect to a subject (see [0057]-[0067]);
input a basis set including a plurality of spectrum bases (Fig. 5, see the first-MRS-spectrum and second-MRS-spectrum. Also see [0065]-[0067]) respectively corresponding to a plurality of materials (see [0057]. The plurality and different amounts of metabolite/materials such as NAA, Cr, Cho, etc., of Takeshima), the basis set including a plurality of basis fragments obtained by dividing, based on a predetermined criterion (see [0069]. Any or all of the parameters/predetermined-criterions for first-MRS-spectrum and second-MRS-spectrum of Takeshima being different, thus dividing them in fragments. For example, the fragments TE=35ms and TR=3000ms for first-MRS-spectrum), a basis spectrum relating to a material of interest (see [0070]. The intermediate-MRS-spectrum) which is all or some of the materials (see [0057]. The plurality and different amounts of metabolite/materials such as NAA, Cr, Cho, etc., of Takeshima); and
perform a regression calculation (see [0050]) which applies the basis set to the acquired spectrum (Fig. 5, see the first-MRS-spectrum and second-MRS-spectrum. Also see [0065]-[0067]) and output a result of spectrum analysis (Fig. 4, see the step S7. Also see [0071]) based on the regression calculation (see [0050]).
As per claim 23, Takeshima discloses:
A spectrum analysis method (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use. However, see [0034]) comprising:
obtaining an acquired spectrum of an MRS pulse sequence (Fig. 4, see the steps S1-S5. Also see [0065]-[0067] and [0060]) with respect to a subject (see [0057]-[0067]);
inputting a basis set including a plurality of spectrum bases (Fig. 5, see the first-MRS-spectrum and second-MRS-spectrum. Also see [0065]-[0067]) respectively corresponding to a plurality of materials (see [0057]. The plurality and different amounts of metabolite/materials such as NAA, Cr, Cho, etc., of Takeshima), the basis set including a plurality of basis fragments obtained by dividing, based on a predetermined criterion (see [0069]. Any or all of the parameters/predetermined-criterions for first-MRS-spectrum and second-MRS-spectrum of Takeshima being different, thus dividing them in fragments. For example, the fragments TE=35ms and TR=3000ms for first-MRS-spectrum), a basis spectrum relating to a material of interest (see [0070]. The intermediate-MRS-spectrum) which is some or all of the materials (see [0057]. The plurality and different amounts of metabolite/materials such as NAA, Cr, Cho, etc., of Takeshima); and
performing a regression calculation (see [0050]) which applies the basis set to the acquired spectrum (Fig. 5, see the first-MRS-spectrum and second-MRS-spectrum. Also see [0065]-[0067]) and outputting a result of spectrum analysis (Fig. 4, see the step S7. Also see [0071]) based on the regression calculation (see [0050]).
As per claim 24, Takeshima discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable medium including computer executable instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use. However, see [0033] and/or [0125]) comprising:
obtaining an acquired spectrum of an MRS pulse sequence (Fig. 4, see the steps S1-S5. Also see [0065]-[0067] and [0060]) with respect to a subject (see [0057]-[0067]);
inputting a basis set including a plurality of spectrum bases (Fig. 5, see the first-MRS-spectrum and second-MRS-spectrum. Also see [0065]-[0067]) respectively corresponding to a plurality of materials (see [0057]. The plurality and different amounts of metabolite/materials such as NAA, Cr, Cho, etc., of Takeshima), the basis set including a plurality of basis fragments obtained by dividing, based on a predetermined criterion (see [0069]. Any or all of the parameters/predetermined-criterions for first-MRS-spectrum and second-MRS-spectrum of Takeshima being different, thus dividing them in fragments. For example, the fragments TE=35ms and TR=3000ms for first-MRS-spectrum), a basis spectrum relating to a material of interest (see [0070]. The intermediate-MRS-spectrum) which is some or all of the materials (see [0057]. The plurality and different amounts of metabolite/materials such as NAA, Cr, Cho, etc., of Takeshima); and
performing a regression calculation (see [0050]) which applies the basis set to the acquired spectrum (Fig. 5, see the first-MRS-spectrum and second-MRS-spectrum. Also see [0065]-[0067]) and outputting a result of spectrum analysis (Fig. 4, see the step S7. Also see [0071]) based on the regression calculation (see [0050]).
31. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Shahaf (Pub. No.: US 2012/0296569) teaches “Each electrode was then filtered into overlapping frequency bands in order to separate the EEG activity into basic well known brain processes (Klimesch, 1999; Basar et al., 2001). Frequency bands were defined as follows: delta band (1-4 Hz), theta band (3-8 Hz), alpha band (7-13 Hz), low beta band (12-18 Hz), beta band (17-23 Hz), and high beta band (22-30 Hz). All overlapping frequency bands were used in the next stages of the analysis such that no loss of information occurred” (Paragraph [0294]).
b) Peacock (Pub. No.: US 2013/0053658) teaches “An MR Spectroscopy (MRS) system and approach is provided for diagnosing painful and non-painful discs in chronic, severe low back pain patients (DDD-MRS). A DDD-MRS pulse sequence generates and acquires DDD-MRS spectra within intervertebral disc nuclei for later signal processing and diagnostic analysis. An interfacing DDD-MRS signal processor receives output signals of the DDD-MRS spectra acquired and is configured to optimize signal-to-noise ratio by an automated system that selectively conducts optimal channel selection, phase and frequency correction, and frame editing as appropriate for a given acquisition series” (Abstract).
c) TAKESHIMA (Bibliographic data: JP2022061484 (A) ― 2022-04-18, which was submitted via IDS) teaches:
“transmitting coil 45 in order to apply an RF pulse to the subject P via the transmitting coil 45 in order to excite the target proton present in the subject P” (Paragraph [0016]).
“A technique is also known that uses a deep neural network to represent the regression process that obtains spectral parameters for each artificial spectrum from a single MRS spectrum” (Paragraph [0003]).
d) KIM (Pub. No.: US 2022/0117552) teaches:
“a prepared metabolite phantom may be placed in a magnetic resonator, and then T2-weighted fast spin-echo images may be obtained” (Paragraph [0103]).
“FIG. 23 is a view illustrating a mean and standard deviation graph for metabolites at different sites (14 normal rats), and P-values as t-test results” (Paragraph [0048])
e) TAKESHIMA (Pub. No.: US 2022/0343565) teaches that “The transmitter circuitry 23 supplies a current to the transmitter coil 45 in order to apply an RF pulse for exciting a target proton in the subject P to the subject P via the transmitter coil 45. The RF magnetic field pulse vibrates at a resonance frequency specific to the target protons, and also electrically excites those target protons” (Paragraph [0037]).
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