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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 10/20/2025, with respect to the previous claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 10/20/2025, with respect to the previous 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 regarding the previous prior art rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that prior art, Cukur, does not teach “acquiring image data at a first spatial resolution from the signal echoes produced by the object in response to the plurality of electromagnetic pulses and the plurality of first gradients and the at least one second gradient; and combining the image data acquired from signal echoes in order to produce at least one image of the object at a second spatial resolution, the second spatial resolution being higher than the first spatial resolution.” Applicant goes on to argue that the cited portions of Cukur in the previous office action (Col 3, lines 49-64 - allowing for higher resolution images) merely reflects the fact that the user can use the additional flexibility of the proposed approach to acquire a high-resolution, artifact-free image from a series of equally high resolution but artifacted images. In contrast to the disclosure of Cukur, claim 1 recites "acquiring image data at a first spatial resolution from the signal echoes produced by the object in response to the plurality of electromagnetic pulses and the plurality of first gradients and the at least one second gradient" and "combining the image data acquired from signal echoes in order to produce at least one image of the object at a second spatial resolution, the second spatial resolution being higher than the first spatial resolution."
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Cukur explicitly teaches
“A novel method (weighted combination SSFP or WC-SSFP) for combining a plurality of SSFP images with different RF phase increments for improved shaping of the SSFP profile is proposed and its applicability to banding artifact reduction is demonstrated. This method approaches the SNR efficiency of the SOS method, while reducing the banding artifacts as effectively as the complex-sum method by weighting each SSFP dataset by a power (greater than 1) of its magnitude. The exact value of the power is a control parameter which adjusts the trade-off between banding artifact reduction and SNR efficiency, giving greater flexibility for image optimization. The favorable SNR efficiency properties and robust banding artifact reduction coupled with this flexibility to tune for specific applications will allow higher field SSFP imaging, higher resolution or reduced SAR imaging over a greater range of TRs and with reduced banding artifact.”
From the teaches of the Cukur, it is disclosed that the weighted combination of SSFP images allows for an improvement of SNR efficiency. That improvement in SNR efficiency then allows for higher resolution. Therefore, the higher resolution can only be obtained after the weighted combination of SSFP images. So it is believed by the examiner that Cukur does teach "acquiring image data at a first spatial resolution from the signal echoes produced by the object in response to the plurality of electromagnetic pulses and the plurality of first gradients and the at least one second gradient" [the SSFP images before weighted combination] and "combining the image data acquired from signal echoes in order to produce at least one image of the object at a second spatial resolution, the second spatial resolution being higher than the first spatial resolution" [the weighted combination image].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-3, 6-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cukur (US 7,439,740).
Regarding claim 1, Cukur teaches a method for generating a magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, image of a subject, the method comprising:
applying a magnetic field B0 to the subject [See magnet system. See also rest of reference.];
applying a sequence of electromagnetic pulses to the subject [See Figs. 1A-B, wherein electromagnetic pulses are executed as part of the SSFP pulse sequence. See also rest of reference.];
applying further magnetic field gradients in addition to the magnetic field B0, the magnetic field gradients comprising a plurality of first gradients and at least one second gradient [See Figs. 1A-B, wherein gradients are executed as part of the SSFP pulse sequence. See also rest of reference.];
measuring signal echoes produced by the object in response to a plurality of electromagnetic pulses of the sequence of electromagnetic pulses and the plurality of first gradients and the at least one second gradient [See echo and echo time. See also rest of reference.];
acquiring image data at a first spatial resolution from the signal echoes produced by the object in response to the plurality of electromagnetic pulses and the plurality of first gradients and the at least one second gradient [Col. 3, lines 49-64, see weighted combination SSFP for combining a plurality of SSFP images with different RF phase increments. The first resolution images would be Cukur’s SSFP images before weighted combination See also rest of reference.]; and
combining the image data acquired from signal echoes in order to produce at least one image of the object at a second spatial resolution, the second spatial resolution being higher than the first spatial resolution [Col. 3, lines 49-64, see weighted combination SSFP for combining a plurality of SSFP images with different RF phase increments and will allow for higher resolution final images. The weighted combination of SSFP images allows for an improvement of SNR efficiency. That improvement in SNR efficiency then allows for higher resolution. Therefore, the higher resolution can only be obtained after the weighted combination of SSFP images. See also rest of reference.],
wherein the plurality of first gradients are fully rewound in an interval between successive electromagnetic pulses, while the at least one second gradient has a non-zero gradient-time integral between successive electromagnetic pulses [Fig. 1A, wherein All gradients used for slice selection or imaging are fully rewound over each repetitive time, TR. However, gradients Gx are not fully rewound and have a non-zero gradient-time integral between successive electromagnetic pulses. See also rest of reference.],
wherein a phase of at least one electromagnetic pulse in the sequence of electromagnetic pulses is different to another electromagnetic pulse in the sequence of electromagnetic pulses [See phase increments. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 2, Cukur further teaches wherein the sequence of electromagnetic pulses comprises at least a first set of electromagnetic pulses, wherein a first pulse of the first set has a first phase φ1, and each subsequent pulse of the first set has a phase which is incremented by a first interval [See phase increments. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Cukur teaches wherein the sequence of electromagnetic pulses comprises a second set of electromagnetic pulses, wherein a first pulse of the second set has a second phase φ 2, and each subsequent pulse in the second set has a phase which is incremented by a second interval which is different to the first interval [See different RF phase increments. See Col. 3, lines 30-64. Col. 4, lines 5-20. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 6, Cukur teaches wherein the plurality of first gradients comprise at least one of phase encoding gradients, slice select gradients and frequency encoding gradients arranged along a first axis, and wherein the gradient-time integral of the second gradient is oriented along the first axis [Fig. 1A, wherein frequency encoding Gx is played out and has a non-zero gradient integral. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to this claim. Claim 7 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the same reasons for rejection as claim 2 also apply to this claim. Claim 8 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, the same reasons for rejection as claim 3 also apply to this claim. Claim 9 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, the same reasons for rejection as claim 6 also apply to this claim. Claim 12 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 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.
Claims 4-5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Cukur, in view of De Rochefort (US 2018/0136300).
Regarding claim 4, Cukur teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Cukur further teaches wherein the sequence of electromagnetic pulses comprises at least a first set of electromagnetic pulses, wherein a first pulse of the first set has a first phase φ1, and each subsequent pulse of the first set has a phase which is incremented by a interval [See phase increments. See also rest of reference.].
However, Cukur is silent in teaching a phase which is incremented by a interval.
De Rochefort, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the sequence of electromagnetic pulses comprises at least a first set of electromagnetic pulses, wherein a first pulse of the first set has a first phase φ1, and each subsequent pulse of the first set has a phase which is incremented by a quadratically increasing interval [See quadratic phase cycling. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cukur and De Rochefort because both references teach using SSFP sequences in MRI and incrementing the phase of RF pulses. De Rochefort further teaches using quadratic phase cycling from one excitation to another combined with a non-zero gradient area between pulses, is a known method and was proposed in order to efficiently limit the formation of transverse magnetization coherences [De Rochefort - ¶0121].
Regarding claim 5, Cukur teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Cukur is silent in teaching wherein the image data from more than one signal echo is measured in the interval between subsequent pulses in the sequence of electromagnetic pulses.
De Rochefort, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the image data from more than one signal echo is measured in the interval between subsequent pulses in the sequence of electromagnetic pulses [Fig. 11c, wherein multiple echoes are acquired and Gencoding has a non-zero gradient time integral. See also ¶0136-0145 and rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cukur and De Rochefort because both references teach using SSFP sequences in MRI and De Rochefort further teaches it is a known variant for SSFP to acquire 3 orders in one TR rather than just 1 order [De Rochefort – Fig. 11 and corresponding description. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, the same reasons for rejection as claim 4 also apply to this claim. Claim 10 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, the same reasons for rejection as claim 5 also apply to this claim. Claim 11 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0249297 teaches a similar method of combining MR image data which can improve SNR [¶0043-0044].
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 RISHI R PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-4385. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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.
/RISHI R PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896