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 Interpretation
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.
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
Claim(s)
Generic Placeholder or “means for”
Functional Language
Corresponding Structure
15
a “collection unit”
configured to collect k-space data for each of a plurality of coils, the k-space data being under-sampled at each of the plurality of coils
“the reception circuitry 25 synchronously based on data collection conditions, subjects the subject P to data collection corresponding to the data collection conditions, and collects k-space data relating to the subject P” [0099]
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims are directed at methods and apparatus and therefore are directed at one of the four statutory categories
Step 2A prong 1
Prong 1 requires the Examiner to determine whether the claims recite an abstract idea that fall under one of the following four categories: a) mathematical concept, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, c) mental process, or d) other abstract ideas such as an idea of itself.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold below; the remaining limitations are "additional elements."
Specifically representative Claim 1 recites:
A reconstruction apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to:
generate one or more sparse reconstructed images by performing image reconstruction on k-space data collected at each of a plurality of coils through under-sampling (abstract; mathematical concepts, mathematical calculations);
generate a first sensitivity map corresponding to each coil of the plurality of coils by using a first trained model (abstract; mathematical concepts, mathematical calculations);
perform a data consistency process for improving a degree of coincidence of data relating to the one or more sparse reconstructed images by using the first sensitivity map (abstract; mathematical concepts, mathematical calculations); and
generate a full reconstructed image by performing a coil synthesis process using a second sensitivity map on the one or more sparse reconstructed images subjected to the data consistency process (abstract; mathematical concepts, mathematical calculations; although an image is generated, there is no tangible output to a physical apparatus).
Regarding Claim 8, the limitations of this claim are abstract and/or qualify as insignificant extra solution activity for the reasons given next to bolded portions of Claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations of this claim are abstract and/or qualify as insignificant extra solution activity for the reasons given next to bolded portions of Claim 1, above. The limitations “a collection unit configured to collect k-space data for each of a plurality of coils, the k-space data being under-sampled at each of the plurality of coils; and processing circuitry” constitute physical features of the apparatus but still represent extra-solution activity that do not add significantly more to form a nexus between the algorithm performed by the circuitry and a reconstruction apparatus. Again, the addition of a physical output device, such as a display that outputs the results, may constitute enough to integrate the abstract ideas and extra-solution activity into a practical application.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea because it is analogous to other ideas identified as abstract in court decisions.
See MPEP 2106.04(B) which has distilled some concepts that the courts have deemed ineligible. Each limitation above, where noted, is analogous to subject matter deemed an abstract idea in previous court decisions as mental processes that can be performed in the human mind (MPEP 2104.04(B)(iii).
The claims at issue can be summarized, where noted, as concepts that can be performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Notably, in Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1147-49, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1480-81 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court disagreed, because it interpreted the claims as encompassing nothing other than pure mental steps (and thus falling within an abstract idea grouping) because the claims did not include any limitations requiring computer implementation. The court held that the claims were directed to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Mental processes can be performed by humans with the assistance of physical aids such as pens or paper.
See MPEP 2106.04(B) which has distilled some concepts that the courts have deemed ineligible. Each limitation above is analogous to subject matter deemed an abstract idea in previous court decisions as collecting, displaying, and manipulating data (MPEP 2104.04(B)(i) and collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (MPEP 2104.04(B)(ii).
The claims at issue can be summarized, where noted as merely mathematical concepts and calculations, as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group v. Alstrom, 2015-1778). Both cases are highly relevant and also very recent. Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & TCorp., 550 U.S. 437,451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also the seminal case of Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, where the Supreme Court found that mere post-solution activity (such as the natural output of a mathematical algorithm) does not make the ineligible eligible. The CAFC has treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349;... In a similar vein, the Court has treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc'ns, 823 F.3dat 613;. . . And the Court has recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776F.3dat 1347.
Step 2A prong 2
Under prong 2 Examiner is to determine whether the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order to do this Examiner must identify whether there are additional elements and evaluate whether those additional elements individually and in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In this case, there are no additional elements aside from describing the gathered data. The only elements of claims 1-15 are directed towards gathering and manipulation of data and/or mental processes and no result is discussed. Without a result there can be no practical application of the algorithm of Claims 1-15.
Courts have determined that elements including sensors, processors and memory do not cause a Claim having an abstract idea to be directed at more than the abstract idea. For example. Courts have declined to find significantly more than an abstract idea in claims involving receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321,120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto.
LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610,118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,1363,115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355,112 USPQ2d 1093,1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLCv. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Also, Courts have declined to find significantly more than an abstract idea in claims involving performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594,198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266,1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.").
Furthermore, as stated above, the act of repair and maintenance is wholly unrelated to the abstract idea/algorithm. In Diehr, the abstract algorithm was tied into a practical application because the rubber that was manufactured had characteristics (the degree of cure) that was determined by the algorithm. In this case, the algorithm has no effect on the repair, aside from merely flagging the need for repair, much more analogous to the alarm limit in Flook.
Step 2B
In step 2B Examiner must determine whether the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Examiner must do this consistent with the Berkheimer Memo.
The Berkheimer Memo describes "an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in the MPEP’s noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
See Berkheimer Memo at 3-4.
As mentioned above, there are no additional elements in Claims 1-15 aside from the recitation of the algorithm, performative mental processes, and the data gathered and manipulated.
As such, there are no additional elements to be considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements, and therefore cannot make the claim as a whole significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Rather than being a particular limited application of the abstract idea which serves to improve a specific method or device, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself in practice.
Stated simply, nothing in claims 1, 8, and 15 form a nexus between the algorithm and a reconstruction apparatus or method. Claims 2-7 and 9-14 do not include any limitations to cause the claims to be directed at more than the abstract idea that could be integrated into practical use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al. USPG Pub. No.: 2022/0383561.
Regarding Claim 1, Jiang teaches a reconstruction apparatus comprising processing circuitry (sees figure 2-4, featuring image reconstruction circuitry) configured to:
generate one or more sparse reconstructed images by performing image reconstruction on k-space data collected at each of a plurality of coils through under-sampling ([0055] teaches data acquisition from coils obtained in k space data format; see [0084],[0136] disclosing that the gathered information is given in a sparse manner in K space; under sampling is implemented in addition to full sampling in order to generate image data as discussed in [0023], [0048], [0049], [0084], and [0095]);
generate a first sensitivity map corresponding to each coil of the plurality of coils by using a first trained model (see [0133]-[0134] teaching generation of one or more sensitivity maps corresponding to magnetic coil sensitivity using a trained model as discussed in [0014], [0117]-[0119]);
perform a data consistency process for improving a degree of coincidence of data relating to the one or more sparse reconstructed images by using the first sensitivity map (see [0081]-[0093] and figures 6-14, which discloses implementation of a data consistency process in obtaining a target image from multiple compared sets of image data based on applied maps); and
generate a full reconstructed image by performing a coil synthesis process using a second sensitivity map on the one or more sparse reconstructed images subjected to the data consistency process (taught in figures 6-7 and [0119]-[0133]).
Regarding Claim 8, the device as recited in claim 1 is specific to this method and thus it must perform the method. The method is intrinsic to the apparatus because the recited method steps will be performed during normal operation of the apparatus. Therefore, Claim 8 is also rejected.
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, Jiang teaches the reconstruction apparatus and method according to claims 1 and 8, respectively, wherein the second sensitivity map is generated based on the k-space data, prescan data obtained when the k-space data is acquired, or k-space data collected at a different timing from the k-space data and relating to main scanning (see [0049], [0114], and figure 10).
Regarding Claims 3 and 10, Jiang teaches the reconstruction apparatus and method according to claims 1 and 8, respectively, wherein the second sensitivity map is generated by inputting k-space data used at the processing circuitry to a second trained model, the second trained model being trained so as to input k-space data and output a sensitivity map (see [0049], [0114], [0133], and figure 10).
Regarding Claims 4 and 11, Jiang teaches the reconstruction apparatus and method according to claims 1 and 8, respectively, wherein the k-space data acquired through under-sampling is one of k-space data acquired by a half-Fourier method, randomly sampled k-space data, regularly sparsely-acquired k-space data, or k-space data in which low-frequency components are acquired (see [0055] and [0119]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 12, Jiang teaches the reconstruction apparatus and method according to claims 1 and 8, respectively, wherein if a number of the one or more sparse reconstructed images is one, the processing circuitry generates a plurality of sparse reconstructed images corresponding to the respective coils by using the first sensitivity map and performs the coil synthesis process on the generated plurality of sparse reconstructed images (seen in figures 5-14).
Regarding Claims 6 and 13, Jiang teaches the reconstruction apparatus and method according to claims 1 and 8, respectively, wherein the processing circuitry uses a common second sensitivity map for the coil synthesis process in a process performed on data of a first echo in multi-echo imaging and a process performed on data of a second echo differing from the first echo (see [0055] and figure 10).
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Jiang teaches the reconstruction apparatus and method according to claims 1 and 8, respectively, wherein the processing circuitry uses the first sensitivity map for the coil synthesis process in a process performed on data of an echo in multi-echo imaging, the first sensitivity map being generated by a process performed on data of another echo in multi-echo imaging (see [0055], [0114], and figure 10).
Regarding Claim 15, Jiang teaches a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus (figure 1, 110) comprising:
a collection unit configured to collect k-space data for each of a plurality of coils, the k-space data being under-sampled at each of the plurality of coils (see [0056], [0075], and figure 1, storage device 130 and/or figure 4, 120); and
processing circuitry configured to:
generate one or more sparse reconstructed images by performing image reconstruction on k-space data collected at each of a plurality of coils through under-sampling ([0055] teaches data acquisition from coils obtained in k space data format; see [0084],[0136] disclosing that the gathered information is given in a sparse manner in K space; under sampling is implemented in addition to full sampling in order to generate image data as discussed in [0023], [0048], [0049], [0084], and [0095]);
generate a first sensitivity map corresponding to each coil of the plurality of coils by using a first trained model (see [0133]-[0134] teaching generation of one or more sensitivity maps corresponding to magnetic coil sensitivity using a trained model as discussed in [0014], [0117]-[0119]);
perform a data consistency process for improving a degree of coincidence of data relating to the one or more sparse reconstructed images by using the first sensitivity map (see [0081]-[0093] and figures 6-14, which discloses implementation of a data consistency process in obtaining a target image from multiple compared sets of image data based on applied maps); and
generate a full reconstructed image by performing a coil synthesis process using a second sensitivity map on the one or more sparse reconstructed images subjected to the data consistency process (taught in figures 6-7 and [0119]-[0133]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/MICHAEL A HARRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights