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 .
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.
Claim 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.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 recites in part “step S1: acquiring a multi-contrast real magnetic resonance weighted image and a magnetic resonance quantitative parametric image by using a magnetic resonance scanner;
step S2: synthesizing a first magnetic resonance weighted image according to a corresponding quantitative value in the magnetic resonance quantitative parametric image”.
It is not clear to the office if applicant is referring to the same image here. If the image being synthesized is the same image that was acquired? If it is they the same then the claim should recite, for example, “Synthesizing the multi-contrast real magnetic resonance weighted image ….”.
Claim 1 recites in part “and composing the first magnetic resonance weighted image and the real magnetic resonance weighted image into a magnetic resonance weighted image”
It is not clear how the magnetic resonance weighted image is composed when it was previously synthesized. Furthermore, is applicant referring here to the multi-contrast real magnetic resonance weighted image above or something else? Furthermore, how the composing (combining) still generates a magnetic resonance weighted image? Because the first magnetic resonance weighted image is a magnetic resonance weighted image.
Claim 1 also recites in part “constructing a training set by using the magnetic resonance weighted image and the magnetic resonance quantitative parametric image, training the variational autoencoder model, and updating parameters of the variational autoencoder model, to obtain a variational autoencoder model”. It is not clear to the office what is the difference because applicant discloses training a variational encoder model to obtain a variational autoencoder model. Appropriate amendments and or explanation are respectfully requested.
Claims 2-12 depend at least in part on claim 1 and are therefore rejected on the same ground as claim 1.
Note that the dependent claims might need proper amendment as well in other to avoid being indefinite and/or without antecedent basis.
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 WEDNEL CADEAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7843. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/WEDNEL CADEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632 December 16, 2025
Prosecution Insights