DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/02/2025 was considered by the examiner.
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 4-7 and 13-16 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.
Claims 4 and 13 recite an equation, more specifically the summation with an upper bound P, whose value has not been disclosed. Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim is clear. Claims 5-7 and 14-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by virtue of its dependence from claim 4 and 10 respectively.
Claim(s) 1, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al. Automated design of pulse sequences for magnetic resonance fingerprinting using physics-inspired optimization, PNAS 2021 Vol. 118 No. 40 e2020516118, pages 1-8 (hereinafter referred to as Jordan) in view of Cohen et al. “Algorithm comparison for schedule optimization in MR fingerprinting”, Magnetic Resonance Imaging 41 (2017) 15–21 (hereinafter referred to as Cohen).
Regarding claim 1, Jordan discloses a method for generating magnetic resonance (MR) images using a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system (abs.), the method comprising: determining an optimized set of sequence parameters (T1 and T2 relaxation rates, Methods, MRF Pulse Sequences, pg. 2-3 ) for a pulse sequence (MRF pulse sequences, pg. 1) using an optimization framework (fig. 1, Mathematical Mode, pg. 3-4 ) configured to characterize errors (fig. 2, Robustness Against Systematic Error, pg. 6); performing, using the MRI system, the pulse sequence comprising the optimized set of sequence parameters to acquire data from a subject; and generating at least one image of the subject using the acquired data (fig. 2, Cost Function ,In Vivo Experiments, Optimized Pulse Sequences, pg. 5-6).
Jordan does not disclose an optimization framework systematic error index (SEI).
However Cohen discloses an optimization framework systematic error index (SEI) (eqn. 1, Introduction, pg. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to method to maximize the discrimination between different tissue types using a schedule optimization strategy, as taught in Cohen in modifying the apparatus of Jordan. The motivation would be to provide optimization algorithms based on their optimization speed, cost and the reconstruction errors resulting from application of the schedules found in simulated acquisitions. (see Cohen: Intro. pg. 15).
Regarding claim 8, Jordan and Cohen discloses the method according to claim 1, Jordan discloses wherein the optimized sequence parameters comprise one or more of flip angle, repetition time (optimization algorithms to choose the flip angle and repetition time, pg. 1, Intro.), inversion time for T1 preparation, echo time for T2 preparation, b-value for diffusion preparation, or RF phase.
Regarding claim 9, Jordan and Cohen discloses the method according to claim 1, Jordan discloses wherein the optimization framework further comprises at least one constraint for at least one of the optimized sequence parameters (the TR duration to the range, pg. 3, MRF Pulse Sequences).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan in view of Cohen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boyacioglu et al. 3D magnetic resonance fingerprinting with quadratic RF phase, Magn. Reson Med. 2021;85:2084–2094, pages. 2084-2094 (hereinafter referred to as Boyacioglu).
Regarding claim 2, Jordan and Cohen discloses the method according to claim 1, Jordan does not disclose wherein the pulse sequence is a multi-dimensional pulse sequence.
Boyacioglu discloses wherein the pulse sequence is a multi-dimensional pulse sequence (3D qRF-MRF sequence, Intro., pg. 2085).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to MRF with quadratic RF phase was implemented in 3D with a design of sequence parameters simultaneously sensitive to all), as taught in Boyacioglu in modifying the apparatus of Jordan and Cohen. The motivation would be the complexity of large data and dictionary sizes was circumvented with rSVD-based compression and quadratic interpolation (see abs.).
Regarding claim 3, Jordan and Cohen discloses the method according to claim 1, Jordan does not wherein the pulse sequence is one of a MRF pulse sequence, a multi-dimensional (mdMRF) pulse sequence and a MRF with quadratic RF phase (qRF-MRF) pulse sequence.
Boyacioglu discloses wherein the pulse sequence is one of a MRF pulse sequence, a multi-dimensional (mdMRF) pulse sequence and a MRF with quadratic RF phase (qRF-MRF) pulse sequence (3D qRF-MRF sequence, Intro., pg. 2085).
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 3.
Claim(s) 10 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan in view of Cohen US 2017/0139025 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Cohen’25).
Regarding claim 10, Jordan and Cohen discloses a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system (abs. not shown),
Jordan and Cohen does not disclose optimization framework comprising a systematic error index (SEI); a magnet system configured to generate a polarizing magnetic field about a portion of a subject positioned; a magnetic gradient system including a plurality of magnetic gradient coils configured to apply at least one magnetic gradient field to the polarizing magnetic field; a radio frequency (RF) system configured to apply an RF excitation field to the subject, and to receive magnetic resonance signals from the subject sing a coil array; and at least one processor;
However Cohen discloses an optimization framework systematic error index (SEI) (eqn. 1, Introduction, pg. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to method to maximize the discrimination between different tissue types using a schedule optimization strategy, as taught in Cohen in modifying the apparatus of Jordan. The motivation would be to provide optimization algorithms based on their optimization speed, cost and the reconstruction errors resulting from application of the schedules found in simulated acquisitions. (see Cohen: Intro. pg. 15).
Cohen’25 disclose comprising: a magnet system (fig. 3, elm. 300, par. [0044]) configured to generate a polarizing magnetic field (fig. 3, elm. 326, par. [0045]) about a portion of a subject (fig. 1, clm. 1) positioned; a magnetic gradient system (fig. 3, elm. 318, par. [0045]) including a plurality of magnetic gradient coils(fig. 3, elm. 322, par. [0045]) configured to apply at least one magnetic gradient field to the polarizing magnetic field; a radio frequency (RF) system (fig. 3, elm. 320, par. [0045]) configured to apply an RF excitation field to the subject (par. [0045]), and to receive magnetic resonance signals from the subject sing a coil array (par. [0046]); and at least one processor (fig. 3, elm. 308 par. [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide systems and methods for acquiring MRF data includes performing a schedule optimization that sequentially selects discrimination at each trajectory to yield an optimal trajectory and controlling a MRI system to perform a pulse sequence using the optimal trajectory to acquire MRF data, as taught in Cohen’25 in modifying the apparatus of Jordan and Cohen. The motivation would be to maximizing the discrimination at each trajectory step sequentially or deterministically (see Cohen’ 25: par. [0009]-[0010]).
Jordan discloses determine an optimized set of sequence parameters (T1 and T2 relaxation rates, Methods, MRF Pulse Sequences, pg. 2-3) for the pulse sequence (MRF pulse sequences, pg. 1) using an optimization framework (fig. 1, Mathematical Model, pg. 3-5 ) configured to characterize errors (fig. 2, Robustness Against Systematic Error, pg. 6); direct the plurality of magnetic gradient coils and the RF system to perform the pulse sequence comprising the optimized set of sequence parameters to acquire data from a subject; and generate at least one image of the subject using the acquired data (fig. 2, In Vivo Experiments, Optimized Pulse Sequences, pg. 5-6).
Regarding claim 17, Jordan, Cohen and Cohen’25 discloses the system according to claim 10, Jordan discloses wherein the optimized sequence parameters comprise one or more of flip angle, repetition time (optimization algorithms to choose the flip angle and repetition time, pg. 1, Intro.), inversion time for T1 preparation, echo time for T2 preparation, b-value for diffusion preparation, or RF phase.
Regarding claim 18, Jordan, Cohen and Cohen’25 discloses the system according to claim 10, Jordan discloses the wherein the optimization framework further comprises at least one constraint for at least one of the optimized sequence parameters (the TR duration to the range, pg. 3, MRF Pulse Sequences).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan in view of Cohen in view of Cohen’25 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Boyacioglu.
Regarding claim 11, Jordan, Cohen and Cohen’25 discloses the system according to claim 10, Jordan, Cohen and Cohen’25 do not disclose wherein the pulse sequence is a multi-dimensional pulse sequence.
Boyacioglu discloses wherein the pulse sequence is a multi-dimensional pulse sequence (3D qRF-MRF sequence, Intro., pg. 2085).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to (MRF with quadratic RF phase was implemented in 3D with a design of sequence parameters simultaneously sensitive to all), as taught in Boyacioglu in modifying the apparatus of Jordan, Cohen and Cohen’25. The motivation would be the complexity of large data and dictionary sizes was circumvented with rSVD-based compression and quadratic interpolation. (see Boyacioglu: abs.).
Regarding claim 12, Jordan, Cohen and Cohen’25 discloses the system according to claim 10, Jordan, Cohen and Cohen’25 do not disclose wherein the pulse sequence is one of a MRF pulse sequence, a multi-dimensional (mdMRF) pulse sequence and a MRF with quadratic RF phase (qRF-MRF) pulse sequence.
Boyacioglu discloses wherein the pulse sequence is one of a MRF pulse sequence, a multi-dimensional (mdMRF) pulse sequence and a MRF with quadratic RF phase (qRF-MRF) pulse sequence (3D qRF-MRF sequence, Intro., pg. 2085).
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 13-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY G MCDONNOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm.
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.
/COURTNEY G MCDONNOUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 4/16/2026
Prosecution Insights