|
Patent landscape, scope, and claims: |
US Patent 7,229,606: Scope, Claim Boundaries, and US Landscape
United States Patent 7,229,606 covers MRI-based methods that use human serum albumin (HSA) as a target/participant to examine vasculature, perfusion, and blood volume in a tissue, plus brain monitoring during cognitive events, using a diagnostic imaging contrast agent and MR image acquisition.
What do the independent claims actually cover?
The text you provided shows what are effectively three core method themes, each framed as an “administer” + “obtain MR image” workflow:
- Examining vasculature in an HSA-containing tissue in a human
- Examining perfusion in an HSA-containing tissue in a human
- Determining blood volume in an HSA-containing tissue in a human
- Monitoring the human brain during cognitive events using the same general MRI + contrast agent approach
- Each theme includes dependent scope over tissue types (tumor, heart, brain, leg, lung, kidney) and over timing (during cognitive events)
Claim elements that repeatedly anchor infringement risk
Across claims 1, 3, 5, and 7, the enforceable structure is the same:
- HSA is present in the tissue (a condition embedded in each method preamble)
- A diagnostic imaging contrast agent is administered to a human
- The contrast agent is selected from a group (the provided excerpt truncates the rest of the list after “selected from the group consisting of:”)
- An MR image is obtained of the target tissue/organ
- Dependent claims add:
- tissue category limits (claims 2, 4, 8)
- timing constraint (claim 6)
Because the claims are drafted as method steps, infringement hinges on whether a method performed in the US includes all required steps, in order or at least as a practical sequence:
1) administer the specified contrast agent, and 2) obtain MR images of the claimed tissue under the claimed purpose.
Claim-by-claim scope map
Claim 1: vasculature examination in HSA tissue
Claim 1:
“A method for examining vasculature of a tissue comprising HSA in a human” including:
- administering a diagnostic imaging contrast agent (or salt), “selected from the group consisting of …”
- obtaining an MR image of the tissue
Scope implications
- The claim is broad on the imaging outcome. It does not require quantifying parameters (flow, permeability, blood volume) in the text provided. It requires “examining vasculature”, which is typically satisfied by an imaging workflow designed to visualize or measure vasculature.
- The claim is limited by two hard requirements:
- HSA-containing tissue
- the administered contrast agent belongs to the claimed set (truncated list)
Potential narrowness hidden in the missing contrast-agent list
- The key legal hinge is the “selected from the group consisting of …” language.
- If the list is short and specific (for example, HSA-binding or HSA-targeted albumin contrast agents), the claim can be narrow in practice even if the rest looks generic.
Claim 2: tissues enumerated for vasculature (dependency)
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and limits the tissue to:
- tumor, heart, brain, leg, lung, kidney
Scope implications
- This dependent claim is an additional narrowing, so claim 1 can already cover other HSA tissues if claim 1 stands on its own without explicit tissue enumeration.
- For enforcement strategy, claim 2 provides an easier factual fit for clinical indications.
Claim 3: perfusion examination in HSA tissue
Claim 3 parallels claim 1 but targets perfusion:
- administering the same type of diagnostic imaging contrast agent
- obtaining an MR image of the tissue of the human
Scope implications
- “Perfusion” is an imaging objective that can be mapped to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) or other perfusion protocols. The claim text you provided does not require a particular MR sequence, pharmacokinetic model, or post-processing method.
- Again, the contrast-agent list controls practical coverage.
Claim 4: enumerated tissues for perfusion (dependency)
Claim 4 limits the perfusion tissue to:
- tumor, heart, brain, leg, lung, kidney
Claim 5: brain monitoring during cognitive events
Claim 5:
“A method of monitoring a human's brain during cognitive events” including:
- administering a diagnostic imaging contrast agent (or salt), “selected from the group consisting of …”
- obtaining an MR image of the brain
Scope implications
- The added limitation is the purpose/time context: monitoring during cognitive events.
- The claim does not specify event type (tasks, stimuli, memory tasks, etc.). It does not require a specific imaging paradigm (resting-state vs task-based) in the excerpt.
- This creates a strong bridge to research-use and clinical research protocols where MRI is performed during task performance, provided the contrast agent matches the claimed set.
Claim 6: timing constraint during cognitive events (dependency)
Claim 6 depends on claim 5:
- “wherein said obtaining occurs during a cognitive event”
Scope implications
- Claim 5 could be read more broadly (monitoring during cognitive events could include pre/post imaging), while claim 6 tightens to the actual acquisition window.
- Enforcement is typically easier under claim 6 where the imaging occurs during the task.
Claim 7: blood volume determination in HSA tissue
Claim 7:
“A method for determining blood volume in a tissue comprising HSA in a human” including:
- administering the diagnostic imaging contrast agent (or salt), from the claimed set
- obtaining an MR image of the tissue
Scope implications
- “Determining blood volume” implies the imaging is used to extract blood volume information. The excerpt does not require a specific model or quantitative computation step in the claim text you provided, but infringement can still attach if the method is performed with the objective of determining blood volume.
- As with perfusion, it tends to align with albumin-binding agents and blood pool-related measurement approaches, but the legal boundary still tracks the specific contrast agent list.
Claim 8: enumerated tissues for blood volume (dependency)
Claim 8 limits tissue to:
- tumor, heart, brain, leg, lung, kidney
What is the effective claim “center of gravity”?
Across the provided claim set, the claims cover an albumin-related MRI contrast workflow with these common structural steps:
- Albumin presence condition: tissue “comprising HSA”
- Agent administration: a diagnostic imaging contrast agent from a defined group
- MR acquisition: obtaining MR images of the targeted tissue or brain
- Indication mapping by claim label:
- vasculature
- perfusion
- blood volume
- cognitive event monitoring
The enforceable boundary is therefore dominated by:
1) what “HSA” means in the claim context (albumin presence in tissue is usually implicit physiologically, which can broaden the claim),
2) what contrast agents are included in the truncated “group consisting of …” list,
3) whether the imaging is performed for the claimed purpose (vasculature/perfusion/blood volume/cognitive monitoring).
Scope stress points for design-around (what would typically avoid the claim)
The excerpt you provided truncates the contrast-agent list after “selected from the group consisting of:”. Without that list, the legal avoidance strategies can only be stated at the level of claim structure.
Likely carve-out levers (conceptual, based on claim language)
- Contrast agent not in the claimed group
- If your agent is not one of the enumerated contrast agents (or salts), you can avoid all the method claims regardless of imaging intent.
- No administration of the claimed contrast agent
- Performing the MR acquisition without administering the specified agent avoids the method step.
- No MR image acquisition
- If the imaging modality is not MRI, these claims do not attach.
- Non-HSA target condition
- If the method avoids the premise “tissue comprising HSA” (practically difficult because most tissues contain albumin), then it might avoid. In most clinical contexts, this condition will be satisfied.
- Cognitive-event timing
- If imaging is not performed during cognitive events, claim 6 avoids, but claim 5 can still be at issue depending on interpretation.
Patent landscape in the US: how this patent likely fits around albumin/MRI perfusion
How this claim set tends to cluster with adjacent technologies
Based on claim labeling (vasculature/perfusion/blood volume) and the embedded HSA premise, US patent families that often sit nearby in prosecution and freedom-to-operate include:
- HSA-targeted MRI contrast agents
- agents that bind albumin or remain blood-pool localized via albumin affinity
- Albumin-based blood pool imaging
- sequences and imaging targets for longer intravascular residence time
- Dynamic contrast MRI for perfusion and vascular parameters
- DCE and related modeling methods
- Cognitive/task-based fMRI workflows
- task timing and imaging windows; contrast enhancement may be used for improved signal or specific perfusion metrics
Likely landscape structure (common to older method patents)
A patent like 7,229,606 is often positioned as a method claim wrapper around:
- a specific albumin-binding MRI contrast agent family (the “group consisting of …” list), and
- a set of imaging objectives (vasculature/perfusion/blood volume) and timing (cognitive event monitoring).
In practice, freedom-to-operate disputes in this space usually turn on:
- whether the agent is one of the specified enumerated agents, and
- whether the workflow is executed as a method for the claimed objective, not merely that imaging occurred.
What matters for competitors and investors
For a competitor developing an HSA-binding contrast agent:
- The cleanest evaluation path is whether the agent maps to the exact enumerated list in the claims.
- If the agent is covered, the method usage (perfusion/blood volume/vasculature/cognitive monitoring) becomes the second axis.
For a provider using MRI protocols with an existing blood-pool or albumin-binding agent:
- The main question is whether their contrast agent qualifies and whether their protocol is framed and used to “determine blood volume” or “monitor during cognitive events” using MR.
How to read this as an enforcement portfolio
Independent claim strategy
The independent claims (1, 3, 5, 7) each use the same two-step scaffold:
- administer specified contrast agent
- obtain MR images
This drafting supports enforcement across multiple clinical or research objectives using the same agent and general imaging setup.
Dependent claim leverage
- Tissue enumeration appears in 2, 4, 8.
- Cognitive-event timing appears in 6.
These provide narrower hooks for specific indications (oncology, cardiac, neurology) and for task-based imaging windows.
Practical scope summary table
| Claim |
What is examined/determined |
Tissue/condition constraint |
Extra narrowing |
| 1 |
Vasculature |
Tissue comprising HSA in a human |
Contrast agent from claimed group + MR image |
| 2 |
Vasculature (same) |
Tissue is one of: tumor, heart, brain, leg, lung, kidney |
Dependent on claim 1 |
| 3 |
Perfusion |
Tissue comprising HSA in a human |
Contrast agent from claimed group + MR image |
| 4 |
Perfusion (same) |
Tissue is one of: tumor, heart, brain, leg, lung, kidney |
Dependent on claim 3 |
| 5 |
Monitor brain during cognitive events |
Brain of human |
Contrast agent from claimed group + MR image |
| 6 |
Same |
Brain |
Obtaining occurs during a cognitive event |
| 7 |
Blood volume |
Tissue comprising HSA in a human |
Contrast agent from claimed group + MR image |
| 8 |
Blood volume (same) |
Tissue is one of: tumor, heart, brain, leg, lung, kidney |
Dependent on claim 7 |
Key Takeaways
- US 7,229,606 is an MRI method patent tied to HSA-associated tissue and to administering a specific enumerated class of diagnostic imaging contrast agents (the critical limiting term in your excerpt is the truncated “selected from the group consisting of …”).
- The claim set covers four objectives: vasculature, perfusion, blood volume, and brain monitoring during cognitive events.
- Tissue enumeration in dependent claims (tumor, heart, brain, leg, lung, kidney) gives narrower, easier enforcement targets.
- The most practical legal boundary for competitors is whether their contrast agent matches the enumerated claim set and whether their clinical/research protocol performs the workflow as a method for the claimed objective.
FAQs
-
Does the patent require a specific MR sequence (e.g., DCE-MRI)?
The excerpted claim language requires “obtaining an MR image” but does not specify an MR sequence.
-
Is “HSA in the tissue” a limitation that competitors can avoid?
It is a claim preamble condition: if the target tissue contains albumin physiologically, it is typically satisfied; the main avoid lever is usually the contrast agent and administration step.
-
What is the most important limitation for the contrast agent?
The agent must be “selected from the group consisting of …” in the claim; if the provided group does not include the competitor’s agent, the method claims are harder to reach.
-
How do claims differ between perfusion and blood volume?
They differ by the objective label in the claim (“examining perfusion” versus “determining blood volume”), while the required procedural scaffold remains “administer agent” and “obtain MR image.”
-
What extra condition exists in claim 6 versus claim 5?
Claim 6 specifies that the MR image acquisition occurs during the cognitive event, while claim 5 frames the monitoring during cognitive events more generally.
References
[1] US Patent 7,229,606 (claims text as provided by user).
More… ↓
⤷ Start Trial
|
