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 01/22/2026, with respect to the previous claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 01/22/2026, with respect to the previous 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 01/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive because Lee does not teach using a pair of RF suppression pulses. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously cited Lee, in view of Wilm (“Reduced Field-of-View MRI Using Outer Volume Suppression for Spinal Cord Diffusion Imaging.”).
Some of applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 regarding claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues prior art Lee does not teach Lee does not disclose or suggest that OVS pulses are applied on a per-slice basis in a 2D MRI process.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee teaches “For example, the MRI device 1 may limit the signal of the region where aliasing occurs by generating a saturation pulse before a slice excitation pulse of an imaging sequence” [¶0078]. Therefore, an OVS pulse is applied on a per-slice basis in a 2D MRI process.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 regarding claim 2 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lee does not teach the limitation “wherein based on using the combination with the 2D MRI process, the image comprises a defined image quality and a duration of the acquisition of the signal data is reduced relative to another acquisition duration of a variation of the 2D MRI process employable to generate a corresponding image of the ROI with the defined image quality, the variation comprising the NPW protocol and excluding the OVS protocol.” The applicant goes on to clarify that Lee does not disclose or recognize that employing a combination of OVS and NPW enables a reduction in acquisition duration relative to a variation of the same 2D MRI process that employs NPW without OVS while maintaining a defined image quality. In other words, Lee fails to disclose or suggest the combination of OVS with NPW enables using a reduced NPW factor or a reduced PFOV to achieve the same image quality as using a higher NPW without OVS.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee teaches outer volume suppression (OVS) and NPW (phase oversampling) can be applied simultaneously [¶0059]. This is the same concept that is being claimed (see “a combination of an outer volume suppression (OVS) protocol and a no phase wrap (NPW) protocol” in claim 1). For this reason, Lee satisfies the limitations of claim 2 because Lee teaches the same concept then Lee does teach that employing a combination of OVS and NPW enables a reduction in acquisition duration relative to a variation of the same 2D MRI process that employs NPW without OVS while maintaining a defined image quality. Therefore, the it believed by the examiner that Lee does teach the limitations of claim 2.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 regarding claim 3 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that Lee does not disclose applying a parameterized NPW protocol in which a defined NPW parameter explicitly controls PFOV and corresponding phase-encoding sampling of the signal data.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee teaches applying a parameterized NPW protocol in which a defined NPW parameter explicitly controls PFOV and corresponding phase-encoding sampling of the signal data [Fig. 4, wherein the ROI in the PE direction is set. The larger the ROI in the PE direction, the larger the sampling in the PE direction there will be. This is similar to other figures as well.].
Applicant then argues Lee does not disclose or suggest employing a reduced value of such an NPW parameter based on employing a combination of OVS and NPW, relative to another NPW parameter value used in a variation of the 2D MRI process that excludes OVS while maintaining the same defined image quality.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Similar to claim 2 above, Lee teaches outer volume suppression (OVS) and NPW (phase oversampling) can be applied simultaneously [¶0059]. The OVS protocol in Fig. 5 of Lee does show that the ROI in the PE direction is reduced relative to the NPW (phase oversampling) method disclosed in Fig. 4 of Lee. Therefore, it is believed by the combination of methods disclosed in Figs. 4 and 5, it would be believed that the length of the ROI in the PE direction would be reduced compared to the length of the ROI in the PE direction as disclosed by just Fig. 4 of Lee.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2020/0383601), in view of Wilm (“Reduced Field-of-View MRI Using Outer Volume Suppression for Spinal Cord Diffusion Imaging.”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches method, comprising:
controlling, by a device comprising a processor, acquisition of signal data associated with a region of interest (ROI) within an anatomical region of a subject using a using a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system, wherein the controlling comprises employing a combination of an outer volume suppression (OVS) protocol and a no phase wrap (NPW) protocol with a two- dimensional (2D) MRI process [¶0035, 0040, ¶0042, ¶0059, wherein an OVS protocol is used and no phase wrap is occurring. ¶0044, teaches 2D images. See also rest of reference.], wherein the 2D MRI process comprises applying a pulse sequence for acquiring respective portions of the signal data corresponding to respective slices of the ROI [¶0078, see slice excitation pulse. See also rest of reference.], and wherein the OVS protocol comprises integrating a radio frequency (RF) suppression pulse into the pulse sequence prior to an excitation pulse of the pulse sequence [¶0078, wherein a saturation pulse is executed before a slice excitation pulse of an imaging sequence. See also rest of reference.]; and
reconstructing, by the device, an image of the ROI from the signal data [¶0134-0135. See also rest of reference.].
However, Lee is silent in teaching a pair of radio frequency (RF) suppression pulses.
Wilm, which is also in the field of OVS, teaches a pair of radio frequency (RF) suppression pulses [Page 625, “OVS utilizes one or more spatially selective pulses applied in the OV regions followed by dephasing gradients.”. Therefore, a pair of suppression pulses are disclosed as an option. 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 Lee and Wilm because both references are in the field of outer volume suppression and because Wilm teaches OVS utilizes one or more spatially selective pulses applied in the OV regions followed by dephasing gradients [Wilm – Page 625].
Regarding claim 2, Lee and Wilm teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Lee further teaches wherein based on employing the combination, the image comprises a defined image quality and a duration of the acquisition of the signal data is reduced relative to another acquisition duration of a variation of the 2D MRI process employable to generate a corresponding image of the ROI with the defined image quality, the variation comprising the NPW protocol and excluding the OVS protocol [Lee teaches outer volume suppression (OVS) and NPW (phase oversampling) can be applied simultaneously [¶0059]. This is the same concept that is being claimed (see “a combination of an outer volume suppression (OVS) protocol and a no phase wrap (NPW) protocol” in claim 1). For this reason, Lee satisfies the limitations of claim 2 because Lee teaches the same concept then Lee does teach that employing a combination of OVS and NPW enables a reduction in acquisition duration relative to a variation of the same 2D MRI process that employs NPW without OVS while maintaining a defined image quality. Therefore, the it believed by the examiner that Lee does teach the limitations of claim 2. ¶0061-0065, ¶0072. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Lee and Wilm teach the limitations of claim 2, which this claim depends from.
Lee teaches wherein the NPW protocol comprises applying a NPW parameter that controls a phase field-of-view (PFOV) and a corresponding phase-encoding sampling of the signal data in a phase encoding direction of the 2D MRI process, and wherein the employing comprises employing a reduced value for the NPW parameter based on the employing the combination relative to another value for the NPW parameter employable to generate the corresponding image of the ROI with the defined image quality using the variation of the 2D MRI process [Lee teaches outer volume suppression (OVS) and NPW (phase oversampling) can be applied simultaneously [¶0059]. The OVS protocol in Fig. 5 of Lee does show that the ROI in the PE direction is reduced relative to the NPW (phase oversampling) method disclosed in Fig. 4 of Lee. Therefore, it is believed by the combination of methods disclosed in Figs. 4 and 5, it would be believed that the length of the ROI in the PE direction would be reduced compared to the length of the ROI in the PE direction as disclosed by just Fig. 4 of Lee. ¶0061-0065. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 4, Lee and Wilm teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Lee further teaches wherein the defined image quality comprises absence of wrap-around artifacts or an amount of the wrap-around artifacts being less than a defined amount [¶0024, wherein aliasing artifacts are prevented. ¶0040, wherein folding (wrap around) artifacts are aliasing artifacts. See Figs. 4-5 and ¶0059. See also rest of reference which teaches preventing aliasing.].
Regarding claim 5, Lee and Wilm teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Lee further teaches wherein the defined image quality comprises a defined resolution and an amount of wrap-around artifacts being less than a defined amount, wherein the reduced value is variable [¶0024, wherein aliasing artifacts are prevented. ¶0040, wherein folding (wrap around) artifacts are aliasing artifacts. See Figs. 4-5 and ¶0059. See also rest of reference which teaches preventing aliasing.], wherein varying the reduced value controls the amount of the wrap-around artifacts, the duration, and the PFOV [¶0035 and ¶0040, wherein folding increases with increasing FOV in phase encoding direction. See Figs. 4-5 and ¶0059. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 6, Lee and Wilm teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Lee further teaches wherein the NPW protocol comprises applying a NPW parameter value that controls a phase field-of-view (PFOV) and a corresponding phase-encoding sampling of the signal data in the phase encoding direction of the 2D MRI process [¶0061-0065. Fig. 3-4 teaches the PE direction. Fig. 5, wherein 530 and 540 show saturation bands which are in the PE direction. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Lee and Wilm teach the limitations of claim 6, which this claim depends from.
Lee further teaches wherein the NPW parameter value is variable, and wherein the PFOV, a number sampling steps of the corresponding phase- encoding sampling, and a duration of the acquisition of the signal data increases as the NPW parameter value increases [See increasing the length of the ROI in the PE direction. ¶0056, ¶0071-0073, and Fig. 3-4, wherein when the length in the PE direction increase, then the PFOV, a number sampling steps of the corresponding phase- encoding sampling, and a duration of the acquisition of the signal data increases. ¶0035 and ¶0040, wherein duration increases with increasing FOV in phase encoding direction. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 8, Lee and Wilm teach the limitations of claim 6, which this claim depends from.
Lee further teaches wherein the ROI corresponds to a portion of a target anatomical object, and wherein the employing the combination comprises: determining, by the device, the NPW parameter value, and a spatial position of the one or more volume regions in the phase encoding direction based on the ROI [See Figs. 5-8 and corresponding descriptions. See also rest of reference.], a total length of the target anatomical object in the phase encoding direction [See Figs. 3-5 and corresponding descriptions. See also rest of reference.], and in accordance with defined optimization criteria, the defined optimization criteria comprising balancing minimizing a duration of the acquisition of the signal data and minimizing an amount of wrap-around artifacts included in the image [¶0061-0065, teaches minimizing acquisition in PE direction. ¶0024, wherein aliasing artifacts are prevented. ¶0040, wherein folding (wrap around) artifacts are aliasing artifacts. See Figs. 3-5. See also rest of reference which teaches preventing aliasing.].
Regarding claim 10, Lee and Wilm teach the limitations of claim 6, which this claim depends from.
Lee further teaches wherein the 2D MRI process is selected from the group consisting of: a spin echo process, a fast spin echo process, and a turbo spin echo process [¶0107-0108. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claims 11-17 and 19, the same reasons for rejections as claims 1-8 and 10 above also apply to claims 11-17 and 19. Claims 11-17 and 19 are merely the apparatus version of method claims 1-8 and 10.
Regarding claim 21, Lee and Wilm teach the limitations of claim 15, which this claim depends from.
Lee further teaches wherein the computer-executable components further comprise:
a configuration component that, prior to the acquisition: defines the MRI pulse sequence in accordance with the OVS protocol [¶0059 and Figs. 5-8. See also rest of reference that teaches OVS.]; and determines the NPW parameter value based on the MRI pulse sequence integrating the RF suppression pulse [Fig. 4, see length of ROI in the PE direction. See Fig. 5, which shows an OVS protocol with a length of the ROI in the PE direction. ¶0059, wherein the methods of Fig. 4 and 5 can be combined. Therefore, the length of the ROI in the PE direction will be set according to the OVS and NPW (phase oversampling) methods that are disclosed. See also rest of reference.].
However, Lee is silent in teaching a pair of radio frequency (RF) suppression pulses.
Wilm, which is also in the field of OVS, teaches a pair of radio frequency (RF) suppression pulses [Page 625, “OVS utilizes one or more spatially selective pulses applied in the OV regions followed by dephasing gradients.”. Therefore, a pair of suppression pulses are disclosed as an option. 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 Lee and Wilm because both references are in the field of outer volume suppression and because Wilm teaches OVS utilizes one or more spatially selective pulses applied in the OV regions followed by dephasing gradients [Wilm – Page 625].
Regarding claim 22, the same reasons for rejections as claim 21 above also apply to claim 22. Claim 22 are merely the method version of apparatus claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, Lee teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
configuring a two-dimensional (2D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pulse sequence for acquiring signal data associated with a region of interest (ROI) within an anatomical region of a subject via an MRI system, the configuring comprising integrating an outer volume suppression (OVS) protocol into the MRI pulse sequence [¶0035, 0040, ¶0042, ¶0059, wherein an OVS protocol is used and no phase wrap is occurring. ¶0044, teaches 2D images. See also rest of reference.], the OVS protocol comprising a radiofrequency (RF) suppression pulse applied prior to an excitation pulse of the MRI pulse sequence [¶0078, see saturation pulse before slice excitation pulse. See also rest of reference.];
determining a value of a no phase wrap (NPW) parameter based on the configuring comprising integrating the OVS protocol, wherein the value of the NPW parameter is reduced relative to an alternative value for the NPW parameter applicable to a configuration of the MRI pulse sequence without the OVS protocol [Lee teaches outer volume suppression (OVS) and NPW (phase oversampling) can be applied simultaneously [¶0059]. The OVS protocol in Fig. 5 of Lee does show that the ROI in the PE direction is reduced relative to the NPW (phase oversampling) method disclosed in Fig. 4 of Lee. Therefore, it is believed by the combination of methods disclosed in Figs. 4 and 5, it would be believed that the length of the ROI in the PE direction would be reduced compared to the length of the ROI in the PE direction as disclosed by just Fig. 4 of Lee. ¶0061-0065, ¶0072. See also rest of reference.];
controlling acquisition of the signal data via the MRI system in accordance with the 2D MRI pulse sequence and the value of the NPW parameter [See Fig. 9 and corresponding description. See ¶0059. See also rest of reference.]; and
reconstructing an image of the ROI from the signal data [¶0134-0135. See also rest of reference.].
However, Lee is silent in teaching a pair of radio frequency (RF) suppression pulses.
Wilm, which is also in the field of OVS, teaches a pair of radio frequency (RF) suppression pulses [Page 625, “OVS utilizes one or more spatially selective pulses applied in the OV regions followed by dephasing gradients.”. Therefore, a pair of suppression pulses are disclosed as an option. 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 Lee and Wilm because both references are in the field of outer volume suppression and because Wilm teaches OVS utilizes one or more spatially selective pulses applied in the OV regions followed by dephasing gradients [Wilm – Page 625].
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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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