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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 3/11/2026 in which claims 1, 5, 7, 12-13, 16, 18, and 20 have been amended, claims 2, 4, 8, 14, and 17 have been canceled and new claims 21-25 have been added. Thus, the claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-16, and 18-25 are pending in the application.
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, 3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-16, and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of obtaining a MRI image on a target subject without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 1 as the representative claim that describes the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1, 16, and 20.
Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 recites a series of steps, e.g., obtaining an intermediate file related to an MRI sequence, the intermediate file being generated in first development environment and being readable and convertible in a second development environment, wherein: the first development environment is a development environment configured to develop the intermediate file and established in a terminal device, the second development environment is a development environment designed for an MRI device, and a computer language and a development mode of the first development environment are different from those of the second development environment, the intermediate file is generated based on a first sequence file of the MRI sequence, the first sequence file being generated in the first development environment through the computer language of the first development environment; determining, from a plurality of interfaces corresponding to different file types, a target interface corresponding to a type of the intermediate file, the plurality of interfaces being software components or application program interfaces (APIs) developed in the second development environment in advance; obtaining information of the MRI sequence by parsing the intermediate file; converting, using the target interface, the information of the MRI sequence into one or more MRI sequence elements executable in the second development environment; performing, in the second development environment, a verification operation on the one or more MRI sequence elements; and in response to a successful verification result on the verification operation, generating hardware instructions based on the one or more MRI sequence elements, and controlling at least one of a magnetic body, a gradient coil assembly, or a radiofrequency (RF) coil assembly of the MRI device to execute the hardware instructions to apply the MRI sequence on a target subject and obtain MR signals corresponding to the MRI sequence. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) recite an abstract idea of obtaining an MRI image on a target subject which may correspond to a certain method of organizing human activity. The additional elements of a terminal device, an MRI device, a computer language, interface, software components, application program interfaces (APIs), hardware instructions, and a magnetic body, a gradient coil assembly, or a radiofrequency (RF) coil assembly of the MRI device, and MRI signals do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a terminal device, an MRI device, a computer language, interface, software components, application program interfaces (APIs), hardware instructions, and a magnetic body, a gradient coil assembly, or a radiofrequency (RF) coil assembly of the MRI device, and MRI signals result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea. The additional elements of a terminal device, an MRI device, a computer language, interface, software components, application program interfaces (APIs), hardware instructions, and a magnetic body, a gradient coil assembly, or a radiofrequency (RF) coil assembly of the MRI device, and MRI signals are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer and a medical device. The presence of a generic computer and a medical device is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention by applying the exception using a generic element (MPEP 2106.05(f)). An MRI device, a magnetic body, a gradient coil assembly, or a radiofrequency (RF) coil assembly of the MRI device, and MRI signals are recited at a high level of generality in that it amount to an insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data (image) gathering step) and does not transform an abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the recitation of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites the additional elements of a terminal device, an MRI device, a computer language, interface, software components, application program interfaces (APIs), hardware instructions, and a magnetic body, a gradient coil assembly, or a radiofrequency (RF) coil assembly of the MRI device, and MRI signals are recited at a high level of generality in that it result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using a generic medical device. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these elements provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic manner. An MRI device, a magnetic body, a gradient coil assembly, or a radiofrequency (RF) coil assembly of the MRI device, and MRI signals are recited at a high level of generality in that it amount to an insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data (image) gathering step) and do not transform an abstract idea into a practical application or amount to add significantly more (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be applied to other independent claims 16 and 20 and hence the claims 16 and 20 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-15 and 17-25 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 16, thus correspond to a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 1-25 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Examiner withdraws 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-20 in view of the amendment/argument.
Applicant's arguments filed dated 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea under Prong one.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that in the absence of additional elements, the claim describes the steps of obtaining, determining, converting, performing, generating and controlling. These steps correspond to a certain method of organizing human activity and thus are abstract in nature. The additional elements do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea and thus the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong One.
With respect to Prong Two, Applicant states that the amended claim 1 has integrated the features into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it simply amounts to applying the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements do not address a technical problem or provide a technical solution to a technical problem. Without a technical solution, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to “Significantly More” arguments, Applicant states that the claimed invention meets the improvement to another technology. Further, amended claim 1 recites “specific limitation[s] other than what is well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activity in the field,” and recites “unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that as explained above under Prong Two that the additional elements do not provide any technical improvements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. If there is an improvement, it is to the abstract idea of obtaining a MRI image on a target subject. Moreover, the limitations such as obtaining, determination are abstract elements and cannot furnish an inventive concept. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it simply amounts to applying the abstract idea. Moreover, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. As made clear by the courts, the “’novelty’ of any elements or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding Berkheimer, Examiner notes that the office action does not state that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity and thus these arguments are moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684