DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims have multiple antecedent issues. The examiner identified numerous issues below, but requests assistance from the applicant to review and correct any further issues. The examiner proposes the following corrections:
A method for determining a flip angle for multi-tissue magnetic resonance scanning, comprising:
determining, by a signal strength acquisition module, multiple types of tissue of interest for MRI (magnetic resonance imaging)
acquiring, by the signal strength acquisition module, a relationship between combined SSI MR (steady state incoherent magnetic resonance) signal strength of all the tissues of interest and flip angle of an SSI sequence for MRI
according to the relationship between combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and flip angle of the SSI sequence for MRI
according to [[a]]the maximum value of the combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest, acquiring, by a flip angle determination module, an optimum flip angle which causes the combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and contrast between the tissues of interest simultaneously to be optimal; and
taking, by
2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of acquiring [[a]]the relationship between combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and flip angle of an SSI sequence for MRI
according to longitudinal relaxation time T1, enhanced transverse relaxation time T2*, a magnetization strength in a state of thermal equilibrium and a spin density of each type of tissue of interest for MRI the relationship between combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and flip angle of the SSI sequence.
3. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of acquiring [[an]]the optimum flip angle which causes the combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and the contrast between the tissues of interest simultaneously to be optimal, according to the maximum value of the combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest, comprises:
subtracting a maximum tolerance value from the maximum value of the combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest, to obtain a final value of combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest; and
taking a larger flip angle corresponding to the final value of combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest to act as the optimum flip angle.
4. The method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the step of calculating [[a]]the relationship between combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and flip angle of the SSI sequence comprises:
respectively calculating a relationship between SSI MR signal strength of each type of tissue of interest for MRI
according to a principle that combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest for MRI
5. The method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the step of respectively calculating [[a]]the relationship between SSI MR signal strength of each type of tissue of interest for MRI the SSI sequence for MRI
(see equation)
wherein Si is SSI MR signal strength of an ith type of tissue of interest, poi is spin density of the ith type of tissue of interest, Moi is magnetization strength of the ith type of tissue of interest in a state of thermal equilibrium, T1i is T1 of the ith type of tissue of interest, T2i is T2* of the ith type of tissue of interest, TR is the repetition timethe echo time
the step of acquiring the relationship between the combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and flip angle of the SSI sequence comprises:
(see equation)
wherein N is a total number of types of tissue of interest for MRI
6. An apparatus for determining a flip angle for multi-tissue magnetic resonance scanning, comprising:
a signal strength acquisition module operable to determine multiple types of tissue of interest for MRI (magnetic resonance imaging)
a flip angle determination module operable to, according to a maximum value of the combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest, acquire an optimum flip angle which causes the combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and contrast between the tissues of interest simultaneously to be optimal; and take the optimum flip angle as a flip angle of an SSI sequence for multi-tissue MR scanning
7. The apparatus as claimed in claim 6, wherein the acquisition by the signal strength acquisition module of the relationship between combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and flip angle of [[an]]the SSI sequence for MRI
according to longitudinal relaxation time T1, enhanced transverse relaxation time T2*, a magnetization strength in a state of thermal equilibrium and a spin density of each type of tissue of interest for MRI the relationship between combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and flip angle of the SSI sequence.
8. The apparatus as claimed in claim 6, wherein the acquisition by the flip angle determination module, according to [[a]]the maximum value of the combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest, of [[a]]the optimum flip angle which causes the combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and the contrast between the tissues of interest simultaneously to be optimal comprises:
subtracting a maximum tolerance value from the maximum value of the combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest, to obtain a final value of combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest; and taking a larger flip angle corresponding to the final value of combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest to act as the optimum flip angle.
9. The apparatus as claimed in claim 7, wherein the calculation by the signal strength acquisition module of [[a]]the relationship between combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and flip angle of the SSI sequence comprises:
respectively calculating a relationship between SSR MR signal strength of each type of tissue of interest for MRI
according to a principle that combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest for MRI
acquiring the relationship between combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and flip angle of the SSI sequence.
10. The apparatus as claimed in claim 9, wherein the calculation by the signal strength acquisition module respectively of [[a]]the relationship between SSI MR signal strength of each type of tissue of interest for MRI
(see equation)
wherein Si is SSI MR signal strength of an ith type of tissue of interest, poi is spin density of the ith type of tissue of interest, Moi is magnetization strength of the ith type of tissue of interest in a state of thermal equilibrium, T1i is T1 of the ith type of tissue of interest, T2i is T2* of the ith type of tissue of interest, TR is the repetition timethe echo time
the acquisition by the signal strength acquisition module of the relationship between combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and flip angle of the SSI sequence comprises: wherein N is a total number of types of tissue of interest for MRI
11. An MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) system, wherein the MRI system comprises the apparatus for determining [[a]]the flip angle for multi-tissue magnetic resonance scanning as claimed in claim 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
Step 1 (Statutory Category): Claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 6 is directed to an apparatus, and claim 11 is directed to a system. All are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): the limitations “determining… multiple types of tissue of interest for MRI this time; acquiring… a relationship between combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and flip angle of an SSI sequence for MRI this time; according to the relationship between combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and flip angle of the SSI sequence for MRI this time, acquiring… a maximum value of the combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest; according to a maximum value of the combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest, acquiring… an optimum flip angle which causes the combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and contrast between the tissues of interest simultaneously to be optimal” appears to recite mathematical relationships and/or mental steps.
Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): multi-tissue magnetic resonance (MRI) scanning appears to recite a field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h). The “signal strength acquisition module” and “flip angle determination module” are generic structure for performing the judicial exception, and appear to amount to instructions to “apply it” under MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding the limitation “taking… the optimum flip angle as a flip angle of an SSI sequence for multi-tissue MR scanning this time.” The specification does not provide much guidance as to how the limitation should be interpreted. Para [0037] of the specification as filed mentions that acquiring the flip angle before imaging allows for imaging at an optimal signal strength/contrast.
If that limitation could be construed to cover something like making a mental decision to set the flip angle for the next scan to be the acquired optimum flip angle, then I would lean towards categorizing this as part of the judicial exception. If it covers something like setting the flip angle for the scan, then it almost sounds like instructions to apply the exception under MPEP 2106.05(f) at Step 2A, Prong 2.
If, however, that limitation is construed to refer to completing an MRI scan at the acquired optimum flip angle, then it would be interpreted as a practical application. Please amend the claims to provide clarification.
Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): As best understood by the examiner, the claimed “signal strength acquisition module” and “flip angle determination module” correspond to a general-purpose processor/software for performing the acts of the functional limitations (see section Claim Limitations above). Since the modules are interpreted as components of a general-purpose computer, the limitations are not interpreted as reciting significantly more. See MPRP 2106.05(f).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a signal strength acquisition module” in claims 1, 6, 7, 9, and 10.
“a flip angle determination module” as recited in claims 1, 6, and 8.
The specification provides no specific structure for the claimed modules, however, the modules are interpreted in view of the acts for performing the claimed function, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the claim modules as processing/calculator modules which are conventional and known in the art of magnetic resonance imaging. See, for example, [0101] of US 2015/0071514 (Wang). See MPEP § 2181, subsection I (C).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 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 claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 9-10 the phrase “this time” is repeatedly recited throughout the claims. In view of the antecedent issues recited above, the phrase is unclear. For example, claim 1 recites:
A method for determining a flip angle for multi-tissue magnetic resonance scanning, comprising:
determining, by a signal strength acquisition module, multiple types of tissue of interest for MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) this time;
acquiring, by the signal strength acquisition module, a relationship between combined SSI MR (steady state incoherent magnetic resonance) signal strength of all the tissues of interest and flip angle of an SSI sequence for MRI this time;
according to the relationship between combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and flip angle of the SSI sequence for MRI this time, acquiring, by the signal strength acquisition module, a maximum value of the combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest;
according to a maximum value of the combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest, acquiring, by a flip angle determination module, an optimum flip angle which causes the combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and contrast between the tissues of interest simultaneously to be optimal; and
taking, by the a flip angle determination module, the optimum flip angle as a flip angle of an SSI sequence for multi-tissue MR scanning this time.
It is unclear if the language “this time” is intended to convey a sequence of steps, establish a new, subsequent antecedent basis, or possibly a translation issue. Does “this time” in view of the “determining” step of claim 1 correspond to the same or different time as “this time” recited in the “acquiring” step and “taking” step of claim 1? Please provide clarification regarding the scope and protection sought by the language “this time” or, preferably, delete the language from the claims.
No art was identified which teaches all elements of claims 1 and 6 at the time of examination.
Claims 3, 8, and 11 are rejected through a dependence on one of claims 1 and 6.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites:
9. The apparatus as claimed in claim 7, wherein the calculation by the signal strength acquisition module of [[a]]the relationship between combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and flip angle of the SSI sequence comprises:
respectively calculating a relationship between SSR MR signal strength of each type of tissue of interest for MRI this time and flip angle of the SSI sequence for MRI this time;
according to a principle that combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest for MRI this time is equal to an average value of SSI MR signal strength of each type of tissue of interest for MRI this time; and
acquiring the relationship between combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and flip angle of the SSI sequence.
As best understood by the examiner, the underlined portion above doesn’t actually perform a step or limit the claim in any meaningful way. As best understood by the examiner, the claim should be amended by combining the last two paragraphs into a single, cohesive limitation as recited in claim 4. Therefore, claim 9 will be interpreted in an equivalent manner as claim 4.
No prior art was identified which teaches all the limitations of claims 1-11. The closest related prior art references are US 2015/0071514 (e.g. Fig. 5) and US 2019/0033418 (e.g. Fig. 9) which determine a relationship between signal strength of multiple tissues and a flip angle of a steady state sequence and taking, by the flip angle determination module, the optimum flip angle of an SSI sequence for multi-tissue MR scanning this time. See PTO-892 for further relevant art.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest acquiring, by the signal strength acquisition module, a relationship between combined SSI MR (steady state incoherent magnetic resonance) signal strength of all the tissues of interest and flip angle of an SSI sequence for MRI this time; according to the relationship between combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and flip angle of the SSI sequence for MRI this time, acquiring, by the signal strength acquisition module, a maximum value of the combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest; according to a maximum value of the combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest, acquiring, by a flip angle determination module, an optimum flip angle which causes the combined SSI MR signal strength of all the tissues of interest and contrast between the tissues of interest simultaneously to be optimal, in combination with all other limitations of claim 1.
The claims stand rejected under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112(b), as outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858