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 04/22/2026, with respect to the previous 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to the previous 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 16-17, the term “the undersampled measurement data sets” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear if this term refers to the “undersampled measurement data” or the “measurement data sets”.
Dependent claims 2-15 and 18-20 are rejected for depending on one of said independent claims.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lai (US 2011/0241670).
Regarding claim 1, Lai teaches a method for generating calibration data for completing undersampled measurement data of an object to be examined via a magnetic resonance system, comprising:
recording N measurement data sets using an acquisition scheme that subsamples k-space with an acceleration factor R, with N being greater than or equal to R, and the N measurement data sets together sampling the k-space completely [Fig. 7, see datasets A through D, where there are four datasets and the acceleration factor is 4. When combined, datasets A through D seem to complete the k-space. See also rest of reference.];
generating phase images from the N recorded measurement data sets [See Fig. 9, which is the method of constructing missing data. See step 274. See also rest of reference.];
determining a homogeneity value of the phase images [See Fig. 9, which is the method of constructing missing data. See step 274. See also rest of reference.]; and
generating a complete calibration data set based upon the N recorded measurement data sets and the homogeneity value [See Fig. 7 and 9-10. See ¶0059. See ACS. See also rest of reference.];
supplementing the undersampled measurement data sets using the complete calibration data set to generate completed measurement data sets [See Fig. 7 and 9-10. See ¶0059. See ACS. See also rest of reference.]; and
reconstructing one or more image data sets from the completed measurement data sets [See Fig. 8, step 262. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 2, Lai further teaches wherein each phase image from among the phase images is generated from each respective one of the N recorded measurement data sets [See Fig. 9, which is the method of constructing missing data. See step 274. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Lai further teaches wherein a number M of recorded measurement data sets are combined to form a combined measurement data set [Fig. 7, see datasets A through D, where there are four datasets and the acceleration factor is 4. When combined, datasets A through D seem to complete the k-space. See also rest of reference.], and further comprising: determining a phase image of the combined measurement data set, wherein 2<M<R [Fig. 7, see datasets A through D, where there are four datasets and the acceleration factor is 4. When combined, datasets A through D seem to complete the k-space. See Fig. 7 and 9-10. See Fig. 2 and ¶0030, ¶0059. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 4, Lai further teaches wherein the M recorded measurement data sets of the combined measurement data set completely scan k-space [Fig. 7, see datasets A through D, where there are four datasets and the acceleration factor is 4. When combined, datasets A through D seem to complete the k-space. See Fig. 2 and ¶0030, ¶0059. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 6, Lai further teaches further comprising: comparing homogeneity values of respective phase images; when a deviation of a homogeneity value of a phase image determined from a first recorded measurement data set and homogeneity values of other determined phase images of measurement data sets exceeds a first predetermined threshold value, the first recorded measurement data set is not used in the generation of the calibration data set; and when a deviation of a homogeneity value of a phase image determined from a first combined measurement data set and homogeneity values of other determined phase images of measurement data sets combined from (i) other recorded measurement data sets, or (ii) from other partially different recorded measurement data sets, exceeds a second predetermined threshold value, the first combined measurement data set is not used in the generation of the calibration data set [See Fig. 9, which is the method of constructing missing data. See step 274-278. See Fig. 2 and ¶0030, ¶0059. See also Figs. 7 and 10. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Lai further teaches further comprising: comparing homogeneity values of respective phase images with a predetermined minimum homogeneity value; when the homogeneity value of a respective phase image determined from (i) a second recorded measurement data set, or (ii) from a second combined measurement data set, does not meet the minimum homogeneity value, the second recorded measurement data set or the second combined measurement data set identified that does not meet the minimum homogeneity value is not used in the generation of the calibration data set [See Figs. 9, steps 274-280. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 8, Lai further teaches wherein different combined measurement data sets are composed of at least partially different recorded measurement data sets [Fig. 2 and ¶0030. See also rest of reference.], and further comprising: comparing the determined homogeneity values of the respective phase images generated from the different combined measurement data sets [See Fig. 9, which is the method of constructing missing data. See step 274-278. See Fig. 2 and ¶0030, ¶0059. See also Figs. 7 and 10. See also rest of reference.]; and using, as a calibration data set, one of the different combined measurement data sets having a phase image corresponding to a predetermined homogeneity value [See Fig. 9, which is the method of constructing missing data. See step 274-278. See Fig. 2 and ¶0030, ¶0059. See also Figs. 7 and 10. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 15, Lai further teaches wherein the recorded measurement data sets comprise reference data measurements to be performed repeatedly as part of dynamic field corrections or as dynamic reference measurements [See ACS lines that are used to determine movement. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 16, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to this claim. Claim 16 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to this claim. Claim 16 is merely the non-transitory computer readable medium version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Lai further teaches wherein recording the N measurement data sets using the acquisition scheme that subsamples k-space comprises sampling k-space lines in a phase encoding direction in which alternating k-space lines are sampled in each of the N measurement data sets, with unrecorded k-space lines positioned between recorded k- space lines [See unsampled phase encoding and ¶0022 for missing lines. See also rest of reference.].
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Lai, in view of Huang (US 2019/0041479).
Regarding claim 5, Lai teaches the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
However, Lai is silent in teaching further comprising: generating a combined measurement data set comprising two recorded measurement data sets that are averaged, the two recorded measurement data sets scanning the same k-space positions.
Huang, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches further comprising: generating a combined measurement data set comprising two recorded measurement data sets that are averaged, the two recorded measurement data sets scanning the same k-space positions [¶0011. 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 Lai with the teachings of Huang because all references are in the field of MRI and Huang teaches it is known to average k-space data when multiple k-space data sets of the same k-space locations are acquired [Huang - ¶0011. See also rest of reference.].
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Lai, in view of Liang (“Prospective motion detection and re-acquisition in diffusion MRI using a phase image–based method—Application to brain and tongue imaging”).
Regarding claim 9, Lai teaches the limitations of claim 6, which this claim depends from.
Lai silent in teaching wherein a new recording of measurement data sets identified as having respective homogeneity values deviating from the first predetermined threshold value or the second predetermined threshold value is carried out when a complete calibration data set cannot be created.
Liang further teaches wherein a new recording of measurement data sets identified as having respective homogeneity values deviating from the first predetermined threshold value or the second predetermined threshold value is carried out when a complete calibration data set cannot be created[Section 2.1.1-2.1.2, wherein the dataset is reacquired if the HHI is below a threshold. 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 Lai with the teachings of Liang because both Lai and Liang teach acquiring phase images in MRI and because Liang it is known in the art to use Haralick’s homogeneity index (HHI) as a quantitative metric of phase image homogeneity [Liang - See Haralick’s homogeneity index (HHI). See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, Lai teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Lai is silent in teaching wherein the determination of a homogeneity value comprises: calculating absolute values of phase gradients, a determination of auto-correlation values of the phase images in one dimension, and/or a determination of Haralick's homogeneity index.
Liang, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the determination of a homogeneity value comprises: calculating absolute values of phase gradients, a determination of auto-correlation values of the phase images in one dimension, and/or a determination of Haralick's homogeneity index [See Haralick’s homogeneity index (HHI). 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 Lai with the teachings of Liang because both Lai and Liang teach acquiring phase images in MRI and because Liang it is known in the art to use Haralick’s homogeneity index (HHI) as a quantitative metric of phase image homogeneity [Liang - See Haralick’s homogeneity index (HHI). See also rest of reference.].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Lai, in view of Herbst (US 2021/0270918).
Regarding claim 11, Lai teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
However, Lai is silent in teaching further comprising: performing a phase correction of the recorded measurement data sets to generate phase- corrected measurement data sets; and generating the phase images from the phase-corrected measurement data sets.
Herbst, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches further comprising: performing a phase correction of the recorded measurement data sets to generate phase- corrected measurement data sets [Fig. 8 and ¶0068, wherein the datasets which include phase data are smoothed. See also rest of reference.]; and generating the phase images from the phase-corrected measurement data sets [Fig. 8 and ¶0068, wherein the datasets which include phase data are smoothed. 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 Lai with the teachings of Herbst because Lai and Herbst are in the field of phase images in MRI and because Herbst teaches it is known in the art to smooth data to remove noise [Herbst – see smoothing. See also rest of reference.].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Lai, in view of Blashe (US 2017/0261582).
Regarding claim 12, Lai teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Lai is silent in teaching wherein the recorded measurement data sets comprise measurement data sets to be recorded repeatedly as part of a diffusion measurement with a diffusion value b=0.
Blashe, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the recorded measurement data sets comprise measurement data sets to be recorded repeatedly as part of a diffusion measurement with a diffusion value b=0 [¶0020. 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 Lai with the teachings of Blashe because all references in the field of MRI and because Xie teaches their method can be used with diffusion tensor imaging [Xie – Page 949. See also rest of reference.].
Claim 13 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Lai, in view of Hoge (US 2017/0276755).
Regarding claim 13, Lai teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Lai is silent in teaching wherein the recorded measurement data sets comprise measurement data sets to be recorded repeatedly as part of a functional magnetic resonance measurement.
Hoge, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the recorded measurement data sets comprise measurement data sets to be recorded repeatedly as part of a functional magnetic resonance measurement [¶0010, ¶0044, ¶0077. 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 Lai with the teachings of Hoge because all references in the field of dynamic MRI and because Hoge teaches a known form of dynamic MRI is functional imaging [Hoge – ¶0010, ¶0044, ¶0077. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 19, Lai teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Lai further teaches wherein recording the N measurement data sets comprises using the acquisition scheme that subsamples k-space in a phase encoding direction [See unsampled phase encoding and ¶0022 for missing lines. See also rest of reference.].
However, Lai is silent in teaching wherein the N measurement data sets are recorded using an echo planar imaging (EPI) sequence.
Hoge, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the N measurement data sets are recorded using an echo planar imaging (EPI) sequence [¶0011, ¶0077. 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 Lai with the teachings of Hoge because all references in the field of parallel imaging with MRI and because Hoge teaches one common rapid imaging method that benefits from accelerated parallel imaging is Echo Planar Imaging [Hoge – ¶0011, ¶0077. See also rest of reference.].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Lai, in view of Zeller (US 2020/0088826).
Regarding claim 14, Lai teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Lai is silent in teaching wherein the recorded measurement data sets are acquired as part of dummy recordings.
Zeller, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the recorded measurement data sets are acquired as part of dummy recordings [See dummy scans. 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 Lai with the teachings of Zeller are all references in the field of MRI and because Zeller teaches it is known to use dummy scans to establish steady-state of acquired MRI signals [Zeller - See dummy scans. See also rest of reference.].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Lai, in view of Wang (US 2020/0300947).
Regarding claim 20, Lai teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
However, Lai is silent in teaching wherein N is equal to 3 resulting in 3 measurement data sets, and wherein the 3 measurement data sets oversample the k-space by providing overlapping coverage of k-space positions across different measurement data sets.
Wang, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein N is equal to 3 resulting in 3 measurement data sets, and wherein the 3 measurement data sets oversample the k-space by providing overlapping coverage of k-space positions across different measurement data sets [Fig. 3, wherein there are 3 datasets 312, 314, 322 and the datasets combined oversample the k-space. 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 Lai with the teachings of Wang because all references are in the field of acquiring even/odd k-space lines in MRI and because Wang teaches it is known in the art to acquire a third dataset when performing artifact correction [See Fig. 3 and corresponding description.].
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 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