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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 28, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed September 28, 2023 has been entered. Claims 1-21 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 12, 2026 have been entered and fully considered. The Applicant has presented a set of arguments pointing out their rational of how the prior art reference(s) made of record in the most recent Office Action does not teach the currently recited limitations in claim(s) 1, 9 & 15. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that, Schulte et al., under U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), as cited by the applicant, the reference(s) fail(s) to show certain features of the invention in independent claim 1, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., please refer to arguments on pgs. 7-8 of applicant’s remarks, in regard to “applying an off-resonance RF pulse using a spatially inhomogeneous RF coil to induce a B1-dependent resonant frequency shift in spins, followed by the application of a frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse in the presence of the off-resonance RF pulse to spatially encode the spins and acquire spatially encoded data”), are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The technical content of the reference (Schulte et al.), is either explicitly or inherently asserted, please refer to MPEP 2131, 2112). Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim language is provided to the claim(s), please refer to MPEP 2111.01 (I)-(IV) respectively. Claim language under BRI does not state a simultaneous “application of a frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse in the presence of the off-resonance RF pulse to spatially encode the spins and acquire spatially encoded data.”
In response to applicant's argument that, Schulte et al., under U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), as cited by the applicant, the reference(s) fail(s) to show certain features of the invention in independent claim 1, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., please refer to arguments on pgs. 7-8 of applicant’s remarks, in regard to “applying a frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse to spatially encode the spins in the subject” stating that Schulte et al. is focused on “mapping the B1 field to determine the spatial distribution of the B12 within a subject, which form shimming (homogenizing) the RF field and optimizing image quality, such as using gradients” and that Schulte et al. does not teach or suggest any concurrent application of the RF pulses, “not multiple RF pulses at the same time”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The technical content of the reference (Schulte et al.), is either explicitly or inherently asserted, please refer to MPEP 2131, 2112). Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim language is provided to the claim(s), please refer to MPEP 2111.01 (I)-(IV) respectively. Claim language under BRI does not state a “simultaneous,” “application of a frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse to spatially encode the spins in the subject” or mention “using gradients.”
In response to applicant's argument that, Schulte et al., under U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), as cited by the applicant, the reference(s) fail(s) to show certain features of the invention in independent claim 9 (similarly to independent claim 1), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., please refer to arguments on pgs. 8-9 of applicant’s remarks, in regard to “the RF system to apply an off-resonance RF pulse using an RF coil of the RF system that is spatially inhomogeneous to induce a B1-dependent resonant frequency shift in spins in the subject” stating that Schulte et al. uses “an off-resonance pulse to induce a B1-dependent resonant frequency shift in spins in the subject” and does not use a “spatially inhomogeneous coil for this purpose”, but focused on “traditional MR hardware systems and achieving a more consistent imaging process via B1 mapping”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The technical content of the reference (Schulte et al.), is either explicitly or inherently asserted, please refer to MPEP 2131, 2112). Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim language is provided to the claim(s), please refer to MPEP 2111.01 (I)-(IV) respectively.
In response to applicant's argument that, Schulte et al., under U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), as cited by the applicant, the reference(s) fail(s) to show certain features of the invention in independent claim 15, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., please refer to arguments on pgs. 8-9 of applicant’s remarks, in regard to “ applying a frequency-selective RF excitation pulse, in the presence of the off-resonance RF pulse, that is frequency-modulated to correspond to a B1 of interest to spatially encode the spins”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The technical content of the reference (Schulte et al.), is either explicitly or inherently asserted, please refer to MPEP 2131, 2112). Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim language is provided to the claim(s), please refer to MPEP 2111.01 (I)-(IV) respectively. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s contentions that Schulte et al. fails to disclose, teach, and or suggest, the above stated claim language of independent claims 1, 9 & 15. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are unconvincing and the rejections of independent claims 1, 9 & 15, and dependent claims 2-8, 10-14 & 16-21, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of independent claims 1, 9 & 15, are respectively maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 20, “produce a range of in[-]homogenous values,” in ll. 2-3, suggest rephrasing to read “produce a range of in-homogeneous values”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-21 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "in the presence of the off-resonance RF pulse" in line 6, without prior disclosure, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for this claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the claim limitation to read “in a presence of the off-resonance RF pulse.” Claims 2-8 are rejected by virtue of dependence to independent claim 1, which do not rectify the defect.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "applying an off-resonance radio frequency (RF) pulse using a radio-frequency coil that is spatially inhomogeneous…" in ll. 3-5, reciting a product, process of making, and process of using the product. When a product, process of making, and process of using the product are claimed in the same claim, it is unclear whether infringement occurs when the apparatus is constructed or when the apparatus is used, or when determining the process of using the product. Therefore the scope of the claim is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p) and 2173.05(q). Claims 2-8 are rejected by virtue of dependence to independent claim 1, which do not rectify the defect.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "in the presence of the off-resonance RF pulse," in line 11, without prior disclosure, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for this claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the claim limitation to read “in a presence of the off-resonance RF pulse,”. Claims 10-14 are rejected by virtue of dependence to independent claim 9, which do not rectify the defect.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "control the RF system to apply an off-resonance (RF) pulse using an RF coil of the RF system that is spatially inhomogeneous…" in ll. 8-10, reciting a product, process of making, and process of using the product. When a product, process of making, and process of using the product are claimed in the same claim, it is unclear whether infringement occurs when the apparatus is constructed or when the apparatus is used, or determining the process of using the product. Therefore the scope of the claim is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p) and 2173.05(q). Claims 10-14 are rejected by virtue of dependence to independent claim 9, which do not rectify the defect.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "in the presence of the off-resonance RF pulse," in line 11, without prior disclosure, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for this claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the claim limitation to read “in a presence of the off-resonance RF pulse,”. Claims 16-21 are rejected by virtue of dependence to independent claim 9, which do not rectify the defect.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "A method for generating images or maps of a subject using a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) system…" in ll. 1-2, and “applying an off-resonance radio frequency pulse “RF” pulse using a radio-frequency coil…” in ll. 3-5, reciting a product, process of making, and process of using the product. When a product, process of making, and process of using the product are claimed in the same claim, it is unclear whether infringement occurs when the apparatus is constructed or when the apparatus is used, or determining the process of using the product. Therefore the scope of the claim is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p) and 2173.05(q). Claims 16-21 are rejected by virtue of dependence to independent claim 9, which do not rectify the defect.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-12, & 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schulte et al. (US 2013/0134972 A1, Pub. Date May 30, 2013, hereinafter Schulte).
Regarding independent claim 1, Schulte, teaches:
A method for using a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) system (Fig. 1; [Abstract] & [0001]-[0002]), the method including steps comprising:
applying an off-resonance radio frequency (RF) pulse using a radio-frequency coil (Fig. 4; [0004]: 406 RF coil) that is spatially inhomogeneous to induce a B1-dependent resonant frequency shift in spins in a subject (Fig. 4; [0021], [0035], [0048], [0052], [0057]);
in the presence of the off-resonance RF pulse, applying a frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse to spatially encode the spins in the subject ([0029]-[0033] & [0035]-[0036]);
acquiring NMR data from the subject that is spatially encoded (Figs. 2 & 3; [0006], [0035]-[0036], [0038], [0043], & [0052]: RF pulse receiver, step 306);
and reconstructing the NMR data to produce a report of internal materials forming the subject (Figs. 2 & 3; [0006], [0035]-[0036], [0038], [0040], [0053]-[0054], & [0060]: step 308).
PNG
media_image1.png
956
1363
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
788
889
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
739
624
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
877
669
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding dependent claim 2, Schulte, teaches:
The method of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract] & [0001]-[0002]), wherein the report includes at least one of an image of the subject ([0002], [0006]-[0007], [0023], [0038]-[0039], [0052], [0055], & [0060]), a map of the subject (Fig. 3; [0002], [0004], [0006], [0023], [0038]-[0039], & [0052]: 308), or a quantitative measure of function ([0060]: calculation of permittivity or conductivity is a quantitative measure of the electrical function of the internal tissues) or the report of the internal materials of the subject ([0002], [0038], [0052], [0058], & [0060]: method uses NMR of atoms of certain elements to generate MRI images, the map is used for image reconstruction for visualization of the body (internal materials)).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Schulte, teaches:
The method of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract] & [0001]-[0002]), wherein the off-resonance RF pulse produces a Bloch-Siegert shift ([0021], [0035], & [0052]).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Schulte, teaches:
The method of claim 1 (Figs. 1 & 2; [Abstract] & [0001]-[0002]), wherein the off-resonance RF pulse ([0027]-[0028], [0034]-[0035], & [0052]: pulse transmitter 204 and Rf coil assembly 56) and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse (Fig. 3; [0027]-[0030] & [0035]) are both applied using the RF coil (Figs. 1, 2, & 3; [0027]-[0037]).
Regarding independent claim 9, Schulte, teaches:
A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system comprising: a magnet system configured to generate a polarizing magnetic field about a portion of a subject positioned in the MRI system (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001]-[0002], [0018], [0027], [0038]: magnet assembly 52, polarizing magnet 54);
a radio frequency (RF) system configured to deliver RF pulses to the subject, and acquire therefrom magnetic resonance image (MRI) data (Figs. 1 & 2; [0002], [0007], [0027]-[0028], [0036]-[0037]: RF coil 56, transceiver module 58, RF amplifier 60, preamplifier 64, RF pulse transmitter 204, RF signal receiver 206);
at least one processor configured to ([0007]-[0008]):
control the RF system to apply an off-resonance RF pulse using an RF coil of the RF system that is spatially inhomogeneous to induce a B1-dependent resonant frequency shift in spins in the subject (Fig. 2; [0007]-[0008],[0021], [0035], [0052]: projection selector 202, RF pulse transmitter 204);
control the RF system to apply, in the presence of the off-resonance RF pulse, a frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse to spatially encode the spins in the subject (Fig. 2; [0029]-[0033], [0035]-[0036]: projection selector 202);
control the RF system to acquire the MRI data from the subject that is spatially encoded (Figs. 2 & 3; [0006], [0035]-[0036], [0038], [0043], & [0052]: RF pulse receiver, step 306); and
reconstruct the MRI data to produce a report of internal materials forming the subject (Figs. 2 & 3; [0006], [0035]-[0036], [0038], [0040], [0053]-[0054], & [0060]: step 308).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Schulte, teaches:
The system of claim 9 (Fig. 1; [Abstract] & [0001]-[0002]), wherein the report includes at least one of an image of the subject ([0002], [0006]-[0007], [0023], [0038]-[0039], [0052], [0055], & [0060]), a map of the subject (Fig. 3; [0002], [0004], [0006], [0023], [0038]-[0039], & [0052]: 308), or a quantitative measure of function ([0060]: calculation of permittivity or conductivity is a quantitative measure of the electrical function of the internal tissues) or the report of the internal materials of the subject ([0002], [0038], [0052], [0058], & [0060]: method uses NMR of atoms of certain elements to generate MRI images, the map is used for image reconstruction for visualization of the body (internal materials)).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Schulte, teaches:
The system of claim 9 (Fig. 1; [Abstract] & [0001]-[0002]), wherein the off-resonance RF pulse produces a Bloch-Siegert shift ([0021], [0035], & [0052]).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Schulte, teaches:
The system of claim 9 (Fig. 1; [Abstract] & [0001]-[0002]), wherein the off-resonance RF pulse ([0027]-[0028], [0034]-[0035], & [0052]: pulse transmitter 204 and Rf coil assembly 56) and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse (Fig. 3; [0027]-[0030] & [0035]) are both applied using the RF coil (Figs. 1, 2, & 3; [0027]-[0037]).
Regarding independent claim 15, Schulte, teaches:
A method for generating images or maps of a subject using a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) system (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001]-[0002]), the method including steps comprising (Fig. 1; [Abstract] & [0001]-[0004]):
applying an off-resonance radio frequency (RF) pulse using a radio-frequency coil (Fig. 4; [0004]: 406 RF coil) that is spatially inhomogeneous to induce a B1-dependent resonant frequency shift in spins in a subject (Fig. 4; [0021], [0035], [0048], [0052], [0057]);
in the presence of the off-resonance RF pulse, applying a frequency-selective RF excitation pulse that is frequency modulated to correspond to a B1 of interest to spatially encode the spins in the subject ([0029]-0033] & [0035]-[0036]: discloses applying slice-selective RF pulses (type of frequency-selective excitation) in the presence of gradients to select a “linear projection” (i.e., to spatially encode the spins), the selection/excitation is performed on the volume where the B1 field is to be mapped);
acquiring NMR data form the subject that is spatially encoded; and reconstructing the NMR data to produce the images or maps of the subject (Figs. 2 & 3; [0006], [0035]-[0036], [0038], [0040], [0053]-[0053], & [0060]: step 308).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Schulte, teaches:
The method of claim 15 (Figs. 1 & 2; [Abstract] & [0001]-[0004]), wherein the off-resonance RF pulse ([0027]-[0028], [0034]-[0035], & [0052]: pulse transmitter 204 and Rf coil assembly 56) and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse (Fig. 3; [0027]-[0030] & [0035]) are both applied using the RF coil (Figs. 1, 2, & 3; [0027]-[0037]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5-6, 13-14, 17-18, & 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte, in view of Vaughan et al. (US 7800368 B2, Pat. Date Sep. 21, 2010, hereinafter, Vaughan).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Schulte, teaches:
The method of claim 1 (Figs. 2 & 3; [Abstract], [0001]-[0002], [0028]-[0032] & [0043]),
Schulte, is silent in regard to:
wherein the off-resonance RF pulse and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse are applied simultaneously.
However, Vaughan, further teaches:
wherein the off-resonance RF pulse and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse are applied simultaneously (Fig. A8; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 35-46], [Col. 12, ll. 4-34]).
PNG
media_image5.png
593
883
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the off-resonance RF pulse and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse are applied simultaneously, of Vaughn to Schulte, in order to attain, and improve Schulte’s sequential approach of two distinct RF functions, B1 (off-resonance) and encoding (frequency-selective excitation/readout), with Vaughan’s technology, to apply the two RF functions simultaneously using separate independently controlled RF channels to achieve the same or improved result (spatial encoding of B1) more rapidly and efficiently, overcoming the time limitation in Schulte’s sequential method, yet yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Schulte, teaches:
The method of claim 1 (Fig. 3; [Abstract], [0001]-[0002], & [0043]),
Schulte, is silent in regard to:
further comprising interleaving the off-resonance RF pulse, and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse.
However, Vaughan, further teaches:
further comprising interleaving the off-resonance RF pulse, and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse ([Abstract], [Col. 12, ll. 4-34], [Col. 16, ll. 30-32], & [Col. 20, ll. 5-8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate interleaving the off-resonance RF pulse, and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse, of Vaughn to Schulte, in order to attain, and improve the performance of Schulte’s sequential approach of two distinct RF functions, B1 (off-resonance) and encoding (frequency-selective excitation pulse/readout), with Vaughan’s technology, with the ability to transmit on multiple channels simultaneously while independently controlling frequency and time to provide the capability to interleave the short, B1 resonance pulses with the frequency-selective excitation (or readout pulses), implementing the frequency-selective excitation pulse as a frequency-modulated pulse, on different channels (e.g., different frequencies) to reduce the total scan time, where interleaving is a standard technique for optimizing sequential processes and Vaughan provides the enabling hardware, to control the capability to interleave the distinct off-resonance and excitation pulse types, that would yield expected predictable results with improved scanning time (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Schulte, teaches:
The system of claim 9 (Fig. 1; [Abstract] & [0001]-[0002]), wherein the at least one processor ([0007]-[0008]) is further programmed (Fig. 3; [0026] & [0041]) to
Schulte, is silent in regard to:
simultaneously apply the off-resonance RF pulse and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse.
However, Vaughan, further teaches:
simultaneously apply the off-resonance RF pulse and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse (Fig. A8; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 35-46], [Col. 12, ll. 4-34]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate and simultaneously apply the off-resonance RF pulse and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse, of Vaughn to Schulte, in order to attain, and improve Schulte’s sequential approach of two distinct RF functions, B1 (off-resonance) and encoding (frequency-selective excitation/readout), with Vaughan’s technology, to apply the two RF functions simultaneously using separate independently controlled RF channels to achieve the same or improved result (spatial encoding of B1) more rapidly and efficiently, overcoming the time limitation in Schulte’s sequential method, yet yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Schulte, teaches:
The system of claim 9 (Fig. 1; [Abstract] & [0001]-[0002]), wherein the at least one processor ([0007]-[0008])
Schulte, is silent in regard to:
is further configured to interleave the off-resonance RF pulse and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse.
However, Vaughan, further teaches:
is further configured to interleave the off-resonance RF pulse and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse ([Abstract], [Col. 12, ll. 4-34], [Col. 16, ll. 30-32], & [Col. 20, ll. 5-8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate interleaving the off-resonance RF pulse, and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse, of Vaughn to Schulte, in order to attain, and improve the performance of Schulte’s sequential approach of two distinct RF functions, B1 (off-resonance) and encoding (frequency-selective excitation pulse/readout), with Vaughan’s technology, with the ability to transmit on multiple channels simultaneously while independently controlling frequency and time to provide the capability to interleave the short, B1 resonance pulses with the frequency-selective excitation (or readout pulses), implementing the frequency-selective excitation pulse as a frequency-modulated pulse, on different channels (e.g., different frequencies) to reduce the total scan time, where interleaving is a standard technique for optimizing sequential processes and Vaughan provides the enabling hardware, to control the capability to interleave the distinct off-resonance and excitation pulse types, that would yield expected predictable results with improved scanning time (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Schulte, teaches:
The method of claim 15 (Figs. 1 & 2; [Abstract] & [0001]-[0004]),
Schulte, is silent in regard to:
wherein the off-resonance RF pulse and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse are applied simultaneously.
However, Vaughan, further teaches:
wherein the off-resonance RF pulse and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse are applied simultaneously (Fig. A8; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 35-46], [Col. 12, ll. 4-34]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the off-resonance RF pulse and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse are applied simultaneously, of Vaughn to Schulte, in order to attain, and improve Schulte’s sequential approach of two distinct RF functions, B1 (off-resonance) and encoding (frequency-selective excitation/readout), with Vaughan’s technology, to apply the two RF functions simultaneously using separate independently controlled RF channels to achieve the same or improved result (spatial encoding of B1) more rapidly and efficiently, overcoming the time limitation in Schulte’s sequential method, yet yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Schulte, teaches:
The method of claim 15 (Figs. 1 & 2; [Abstract] & [0001]-[0004]),
Schulte, is silent in regard to:
further comprising interleaving the off-resonance RF pulse, and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse.
However, Vaughan, further teaches:
further comprising interleaving the off-resonance RF pulse, and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse ([Abstract], [Col. 12, ll. 4-34], [Col. 16, ll. 30-32], & [Col. 20, ll. 5-8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate interleaving the off-resonance RF pulse, and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse, of Vaughn to Schulte, in order to attain, and improve Schulte’s sequential approach of two distinct RF functions, B1 (off-resonance) and encoding (frequency-selective excitation/readout), with Vaughan’s technology, with the ability to transmit on multiple channels simultaneously while independently controlling frequency and time to provide the capability to interleave the short, B1 resonance pulses with the frequency-selective excitation (or readout pulses) on different channels to reduce the total scan time, where interleaving is a standard technique for optimizing sequential processes and Vaughan provides the enabling hardware, that would yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 20, Schulte, teaches:
The method of claim 15 (Figs. 1 & 2; [Abstract] & [0001]-[0004]), wherein the off-resonance RF pulse ([0004], [0021], [0035] & [0052])
Schulte, is silent in regard to:
indicates a flip angle other than 90 or 180 degrees to produce a range of inhomogeneous values of a B1 field within a selected region of the subject.
However, Vaughan, further teaches:
indicates a flip angle other than 90 or 180 degrees (Fig. A13 & B5; [Col. 16, ll. 48-63], [Col. 31, ll. 23-31]: Fig. A13 illustrates a “flip angle 25 degrees,” Fig. B5 was acquired with “flip ~7°) to produce a range of inhomogenous values of a B1 field within a selected region of the subject ([Col. 3, ll. 56-62], [Col. 7, ll. 46-48], [Col. 18, ll. 2-10], [Col. 20, ll. 63-67], [Col. 21, ll. 1-11], [Col. 58, ll. 52-55]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a flip angle other than 90 or 180 degrees to produce a range of inhomogeneous values of a B1 field within a selected region of the subject, of Vaughn to Schulte, in order to attain, and improve SB1 mapping accuracy and efficiency, by combining the teachings of Schulte and Vaughan, adopting a non-90° or non-180° flip angle for the off-resonance RF pulse of Schulte’s method, the modification would optimize signal conditions (e.g., in a non-linear optimization routine for B1 magnitude/phase control mentioned by Vaughan) to more effectively map the inhomogeneous range of B1 values within the selected region (linear projection), overcoming known problems of B1 inhomogeneity in high-field MRI, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 21, Schulte, teaches:
The method of claim 20 (Figs. 1 & 2; [Abstract], [0001]-[0004], [0021], & [0036]),
Schulte, is silent in regard to:
wherein a variation of the flip angle is less than a variation of the B1-dependent resonant frequency shift in the region.
However, Vaughan, further teaches:
wherein a variation of the flip angle is less than a variation of the B1-dependent resonant frequency shift in the region ([Abstract], [Col. 3, ll. 49-54 & 56-62], [Col. 4, ll. 65-67], [Col. 12, ll. 4-34], [Col. 13, ll. 1-2], [Col. 18, ll. 2-10], [Col. 19, ll. 31-38], [Col. 20, ll. 63-67], [Col. 21, ll. 1-11]: relates Image Intensity to the sine of the flip angle, and the system is designed to control the B1 field and its homogeneity which minimizes the spatial variation in the flip angle across the region, describes controlling the magnitude of each element’s RF signal to create a desired B1 distribution, that directly controls the flip angle distribution, and the goal is to improve image criteria (homogeneity, SNR, SAR) through B1 non-uniformity (i.e., B1 variation)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a variation of the flip angle is less than a variation of the B1-dependent resonant frequency shift in the region, of Vaughn to Schulte, in order to attain, and improve the off-resonance pulse (as taught by Schulte) and adjust the RF parameters (as taught by Vaughan) so that the system’s sensitivity to the desired quantity (large frequency/phase shift signal) is maximized relative to the undesired quantity (flip angle variation effect), leaving to a design choice that the variation of the flip angle’s effect on the signal must be less than the variation of the desired resonant frequency shift, to optimize the signal for the Bloch-Siegert method, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte, in view of Zhang et al. (US 2015/0226821 A1, Pub. Date Aug. 13, 2015, hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Schulte, teaches:
The method of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract] & [0001]-[0002], [0035]),
Schulte, is silent in regard to:
wherein the frequency-modulated, frequency selective RF excitation pulse is a frequency modulation waveform that is transformed into an amplitude modulation waveform using a variable-rate selective excitation (VERSE) to control distortions due to limited amplifier bandwidth.
However, Zhang, further discloses:
wherein the frequency-modulated, frequency selective RF excitation pulse is a frequency modulation waveform ([Abstract], [0016]-[0018], [0024], & [0034]) that is transformed into an amplitude modulation waveform using a variable-rate selective excitation (VERSE) (Figs. 1A & 1B; [0013], [0017], [0026], [0031], [0059], & [0061]-[0062]: figures both illustrated “FM” (frequency modulation) waveforms as part of the pulse sequence, alongside AM (amplitude modulation waveforms and a time-varying gradient G) to control distortions due to limited amplifier bandwidth ([0013], [0017], [0026], [0031], [0059], & [0061]-[0062]: teaches the variable-rate selective excitation (VERSE) technique can be applied to modify the RF pattern with required excitation profile, method is used in conjunction with frequency-swept RF excitation to achieve pulse flexibility and control pulse shapes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the frequency-modulated, frequency selective RF excitation pulse is a frequency modulation waveform that is transformed into an amplitude modulation waveform using a variable-rate selective excitation (VERSE) to control distortions due to limited amplifier bandwidth, of Zhang to Schulte, in order attain and improve, by combining Schulte’s method requiring high-fidelity RF pulses for accurate B1 mapping, applying a known technique in MRI as taught by Zhang, to apply VERSE to frequency-modulated pulses to improve spatial selectivity, pulse shape, and compensate for hardware limitations or distortions, applying the VERSE technique to the RF excitation pulse (Schulte) to gain better pulse control and fidelity, and modify the RF pattern, which is an engineering optimization, yielding expected predictable results, to refine RF pulse sequences used for excitation (KSR).
Claims 8 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte, in view of Alsop (WO 2014/151596 A2, Pub. Date Sep. 25, 2014, hereinafter Alsop).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Schulte, teaches:
The method of claim 1 (Figs. 1 & 3; [Abstract] & [0001]-[0002], [0025]-[0027][0035]),
Schulte, is silent in regard to:
wherein the off-resonance RF pulse and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse are superimposed to produce a selective B1 excitation in the subject that is dependent on a frequency modulation of both the off-resonance RF pulse and the frequency-modulated, frequency selective RF excitation pulse.
However, Alsop, further discloses:
wherein the off-resonance RF pulse ([0011] & [0041]: discloses applying saturation pulses which are off-resonance) and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse ([0030], [0041]-[0042], & [0046]) are superimposed (Fig. 2; [0047]-[0049) to produce a selective B1 excitation ([0018]-[0019], [0030], [0038], [0040], [0045], [0054]) in the subject that is dependent on a frequency modulation ([0011], [0018]-[0019], [0021]-[0022], [0030], [0039], [0046]-[0047] of both the off-resonance RF pulse and the frequency-modulated, frequency selective RF excitation pulse (Fig. 2; [0011], [0030], [0041]-[0042], & [0046]-[0047]: teaches a method to apply multi-frequency saturation using a single, modulated pulse).
PNG
media_image6.png
827
799
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the off-resonance RF pulse and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse are superimposed to produce a selective B1 excitation in the subject that is dependent on both the off-resonance RF pulse and a frequency modulation of both the frequency-modulated, frequency selective RF excitation pulse, of Alsop to Schulte, in order attain and improve, by combining Schulte’s method components necessary for B1 mapping (B1-dependent off-resonance RF followed by frequency-selective encoding), applying a known technique and instructions that multiple RF frequencies can be applied simultaneously by sinusoidally modulating a single RF pulse, to accelerate the method of superimposing the necessary RF frequency components into a single, frequency-modulated pulse (as taught by Alsop) to serve the dual functions of B1 encoding and excitation, resulting in a frequency-selective B1 excitation dependent on that pulse’s frequency modulation parameters, and obvious to combine the references by superimposing the necessary B1 encoding and excitation components into a single, frequency-modulated pulse (Alsop) to accelerate Schulte’s method, yielding expected predictable results, to refine RF pulse sequences used for excitation (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 19, Schulte, teaches:
The method of claim 15 (Figs. 1 & 2; [Abstract] & [0001]-[0004]),
Schulte, is silent in regard to:
wherein the off-resonance RF pulse and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse are superimposed to produce a selective B1 excitation in the subject that is dependent on a frequency modulation of both the off-resonance RF pulse and the frequency-modulated, frequency selective RF excitation pulse.
However, Alsop, further discloses:
wherein the off-resonance RF pulse ([0011] & [0041]: discloses applying saturation pulses which are off-resonance) and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse ([0030], [0041]-[0042], & [0046]) are superimposed (Fig. 2; [0047]-[0049) to produce a selective B1 excitation ([0018]-[0019], [0030], [0038], [0040], [0045], [0054]) in the subject that is dependent on a frequency modulation ([0011], [0018]-[0019], [0021]-[0022], [0030], [0039], [0046]-[0047] of both the off-resonance RF pulse and the frequency-modulated, frequency selective RF excitation pulse (Fig. 2; [0011], [0030], [0041]-[0042], & [0046]-[0047]: teaches a method to apply multi-frequency saturation using a single, modulated pulse).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the off-resonance RF pulse and the frequency-modulated, frequency-selective RF excitation pulse are superimposed to produce a selective B1 excitation in the subject that is dependent on both the off-resonance RF pulse and a frequency modulation of both the frequency-modulated, frequency selective RF excitation pulse, of Alsop to Schulte, in order attain and improve, by combining Schulte’s method components necessary for B1 mapping (B1-dependent off-resonance RF followed by frequency-selective encoding), applying a known technique and instructions that multiple RF frequencies can be applied simultaneously by sinusoidally modulating a single RF pulse, to accelerate the method of superimposing the necessary RF frequency components into a single, frequency-modulated pulse (as taught by Alsop) to serve the dual functions of B1 encoding and excitation, resulting in a frequency-selective B1 excitation dependent on that pulse’s frequency modulation parameters, and obvious to combine the references by superimposing the necessary B1 encoding and excitation components into a single, frequency-modulated pulse (Alsop) to accelerate Schulte’s method, yielding expected predictable results, to refine RF pulse sequences used for excitation (KSR).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Grissom et al. (US2015/0253403 A1) discloses MRI using RF gradients for spatial encoding. Wiens et al. (US9989613B2) discloses a system and method for externally calibrated parallel imaging in the presence of an inhomogeneous magnetic field. Van Der Meulen et al. (US2014/0070805A1) discloses MR imaging with B1 mapping. Koehler et al. (US2013/0320977A1) discloses a method and apparatus to determine a subject-specific B1 distribution of an examination subject in a measurement volume of a magnetic resonance apparatus. Nishimura (US4789833) discloses a method for correcting position deviation due to static magnetic field change in NMR imaging device. Morich et al. (US7403004B2) discloses B1 field control in magnetic resonance imaging. Sharp et al. (US8228062B2) discloses RF based spatially selective excitation in MRI. Ouwerkerk (US8633695B2) discloses adiabatic multi-band RF pulses for selective signal suppression in a magnetic resonance imaging. Setsompop et al. (US2010/0066361A1) discloses a method for fast magnetic resonance radiofrequency coil transmission profile mapping. Ruhm (US2010/0286500A1) discloses a method for determining the spatial distribution of magnetic resonance signals through multi-dimensional RF excitation pulses. Arunachalam (US2014/0091798A1) discloses a method and system for rapid MRI acquisition using tailored signal excitation modules (rate). Schneider (US2015/0234025A1) discloses a method and magnetic resonance apparatus for determination of radio-frequency pulses. De Rochefort (US2018/0136300A1) discloses a method and device for imaging by magnetic resonance. Kobayashi et al. (US2019/0369193A1) discloses systems and methods for steady-state echo magnetic resonance imaging. Alsop et al. (WO2017124089A1) discloses a system and method for improved homogeneous and inhomogeneous magnetization transfer magnetic resonance imaging. Ugurbil et al. (US4947119) discloses magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy methods. Dannels et al. (US2010/0239142A1) discloses B1 mapping in MRI system using K-space spatial frequency domain filtering.
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 HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 pm EST.
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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 March 23, 2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 3/31/2026
Prosecution Insights