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 04/27/2026, with respect to the previous prior art rejections of the independent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous prior art rejections of the independent claims have been withdrawn. Please see allowable subject matter section below.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for radio frequency pulses and refocused steady-state free precession pulse sequences, does not reasonably provide enablement for any electromagnetic pulse or any pulse sequence. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The scope of the independent claims are broader than justified by the description and drawings in that the claim wording includes the possibilities that (i) the "electromagnetic pulses" are not radio frequency pulses and (ii) the pulse sequence broadly defined in claim 1 is not a refocused steady-state free precession (SSFP) pulse sequence, while the description and drawings merely support that (i) the "electromagnetic pulses" are radio frequency pulses and (ii) the pulse sequence used in the invention is a SSFP pulse sequence or at least based thereupon (with the added possibility of having an inversion pulse inserted therein), and no other possibilities are disclosed or even suggested in any of the detailed embodiments. Additionally, it is noted that in the field of MRI, the "electromagnetic pulses" must be radio frequency pulses in order to be able to obtain an image, such that for clarity alone, the "electromagnetic pulses" must be limited to radio frequency pulses. Undue experimentation would be required to perform the claimed method with electromagnetic pulses (other than RF pulses) and pulse sequences (other than refocused SSFP pulses).
The independent claims lack support by the description in that the description does not appear to disclose or suggest any other possibility than having the first gradients to "allow the localization of signals to a particular location in the subject by being "a combination of at least one of slice selection, phase encoding and frequency encoding" (see page 3, lines 1-5). Therefore, the independent claims should be limited accordingly.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without “the periodic spatial variations in magnetization [are] generated in the steady-state, and contain information about spatial frequencies above the Nyquist frequency" and that the image data correspond to "a series of images with [the first] spatial resolution [ ... ] with [the] periodic [spatial] variations in magnetization" [See Page 3, lines 7-10 of applicant’s specification], which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
The above essential limitations are required in order to clarify the step of "combining the image data acquired from signal echoes in order to produce at least one image of the subject at a second spatial resolution, the second spatial resolution being higher than the first spatial resolution" of the independent claims.
Currently, the step of "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" defines nothing more than a mere result to be achieved and therefore said claim lacks an essential feature required in order to achieve the desired technical effect of ''produc[ing] at least one image of the object at a second spatial resolution, the second spatial resolution being higher than the first spatial resolution". More specifically, it is completely unclear how "the image data acquired from signal echoes" are supposed to be combined in order to achieve said desired technical effect. Moreover, given the broad scope of the pulse sequence defined in the independent claims (in addition to what has already been mentioned in the preceding objections, it is noted that there is no limitation in terms of the kind of electromagnetic - radio frequency - pulses used between e.g. excitation/ refocusing/inversion pulses), it is unclear whether the result to be achieved can be obtained over all the possibilities within the scope of the claim. Indeed, the scope of the independent claims includes the possibility that one echo signal is acquired between each consecutive electromagnetic pulse and the gradients are such that each echo signal corresponds to a different slice within the object, such that there is no way to combine the image data acquired from said signal echoes to produce a super resolution image that is consistent with any embodiment disclosed in the description. The wording of the independent claims should therefore be amended accordingly.
Claims 1-12 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. The same reasons for rejection as above also make the claims lack clarity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claims 1 and 7, the closest prior art is considered previously cited Cukur (US 7,439,740). Claims 1 and 7 recite "wherein the at least one image at the second spatial resolution is produced from the image data acquired at the first spatial resolution." Cukur teaches a weighted combination of SSFP images for improved shaping of the SSFP profile reduced banding artifacts. Cukur teaches higher resolution imaging can be obtained using this method. However, that statement is only about improving the SNR tradeoff so that an operator could choose to run a different acquisition at a higher nominal resolution. This is evidenced by Cukur stating “The parameter p can be used to trade off SNR efficiency for banding artifact reduction when necessary. Additional flexibility in scan parameter selection, especially TR, will enable SSFP imaging at higher field strengths and with higher resolution” [Col 8, lines 53-57 of Cukur]. This statement by Cukur shows that the higher resolution imaging is not caused by “combining the image data acquired from signal echoes in order to produce at least one image of the subject at a second spatial resolution, the second spatial resolution being higher than the first spatial resolution, wherein the at least one image at the second spatial resolution is produced from the image data acquired at the first spatial resolution” (see claims 1 and 7).
Provided the 112 rejections above are clarified and because of the reasons above, the independent claims overcome the closest prior art. Claims 2-6 and 8-12 are considered above the prior art for depending on one of said independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2013/0314086 teaches an SSFP pulse sequence and is considered relevant to the current application.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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 2858
Prosecution Insights