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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/2025 has been entered. Accordingly, claims 1, 4-10, 20-21, and 24-28 remain pending, and claims 1, 4-8, 20-21, and 24-28 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 112
In light of applicant’s claim amendments filed 12/30/2025, the previous rejections of claims 6 and 16 under 112(a) and claim 8 and 28 under 112(b) have been withdrawn.
However, applicant’s presently filed amendments do not address the outstanding 112(b) issues with the previous rejections outlined in the office action mailed 10/01/2025. And the presently filed claim amendments raise additional clarity issues and have been accordingly rejected under 112(a) and 112(b). See below.
Therefore the claims remain rejected and the rejections have been made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-10, 20-21, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “the first waiting time being an inversion time (TI) between the first preparation pulse and a 90-degrees excitation pulse applied after the first preparation pulse;” and “the second waiting time being an inversion time (TI) between the second preparation pulse and a 90-degrees excitation pulse applied after the second preparation pulse the first preparation pulse and the second preparation pulse being an IR pulse, respectively” in lines 12-14 and 19-22, while support could be found for a first waiting time, TI1, described in the specification as being the time between/after an IR pulse may be applied to the slice locations S10 and S11 and before a spoiled gradient echo (GRE) pulse sequence 2300 may be applied to slice locations S10 and S11 in frame 10 (see [0210], FIG 23) and a second waiting time, TI2, is a time in a separate frame in frame 11, as the time between/after IR pulse is applied to the slice locations S10 and S11, and before the GRE pulse sequence 2300 is applied to slice locations S10 and S11 in frame 11 (see [0210], FIG. 23).
However, this does not provide support for what is claimed, and paragraphs [0183], [0202], [0209], and [0213], which have been pointed to as support for these new limitations in applicant' s remarks do not provide support for what is claimed. In the absence of support for the newly recited limitations, these claims and claims dependent thereon are deemed to constitute new matter. This is a NEW MATTER rejection.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-10, 20-21, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “the first waiting time being an inversion time (TI) between the first preparation pulse and a 90-degrees excitation pulse applied after the first preparation pulse;” and “the second waiting time being an inversion time (TI) between the second preparation pulse and a 90-degrees excitation pulse applied after the second preparation pulse the first preparation pulse and the second preparation pulse being an IR pulse, respectively” in lines 12-14 and 19-22, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how applicant has quantitatively defined each first waiting time, e.g. how many seconds, milliseconds, nanoseconds, etc., each segment of time applicant is defining as being a first “waiting time” and a second “waiting time” and how the quantitative length of each of these differ from one another.
Accordingly, the terms “first waiting time” and “second waiting time” in claim 1 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “first waiting time” and “second waiting time” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the “first pulse sequence” which “is applied simultaneously to the first slice location and the second slice location to collect the first set of k-space data” and the “second pulse sequence” which also “is applied simultaneously to the first slice location and the second slice location to collect the second set of k-space data” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what quantity/amount of “time” for each respective first and second waiting period after application of the “first preparation pulse” and the “second preparation pulse”, respectfully, are required before the MRI scanner the “simultaneously” applies the first pulse sequence “to the first slice location and the second slice location to collect the first set of k-space data” and “simultaneously” applies the second pulse sequence “to the first slice location and the second slice location to collect the second set of k-space data”.
Claims 6, 20-21, and 26 are also rejected for reciting the same and/or limitation outlined above.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
Claim 4 has been amended to recite “a target slice image of the first slice location and a target slice image of the second slice location are generated together with the plurality of quantitative maps of the first and second slice locations”, in lines 1-3, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the of target slice image of the first and second slice locations are the same target slice image, which depicts or contains both of the first and second slice locations, if there are two separate, respective, target slices images for each of the first and second slice locations.
Claims 5, 24-25 are also rejected for reciting the same and/or limitation outlined above.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the generating a plurality of quantitative maps of the first and second slice locations” in lines 1-3, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the plurality of quantitative maps of the first and second slice locations in the present claim, are the same as the plurality of quantitative maps of the first and second slice locations recites in parent claim 1, on which claim 5 is dependent, via parent claim 4,or if applicant meant to refer to a different plurality of quantitative maps of the first and second slice locations than that recited in the parent claim(s).
Claim 25 is also rejected for reciting the same and/or limitation outlined above.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the slice location" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Parent claim 5, while reciting “first and second slice locations, does not recite “a” slice location. It is not clear which previously recited slice location is being referred or if applicant is referring to a new and not previously recited slice location.
Claim 27 is also rejected for reciting the same and/or limitation outlined above.
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 AMY SHAFQAT whose telephone number is (571)272-4054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-5:30PM MST.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571) 270-1790. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights