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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-8 and 20-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/09/2026.
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.
Claims 9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) method steps that can be performed in a human mind (mental process). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because all the steps involve accessing previously acquired data and converting that data into different information. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are a generic computer. The examiner believes that since the generated pTx RF pulse waveforms are not executed by the MRI, then there is no practical, real-world application. Therefore, the claims disclose an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation discloses “wherein the training data comprise multichannel B1+ maps that are concatenated along a single spatial dimension such that the training data comprise two-dimensional data.” However, if the B1+ maps are concatenated along a single spatial dimension, it is not clear what the second dimension is in the “two-dimensional data”. Therefore, the claim is considered indefinite.
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.
Claims 9, 11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mirfin (“Optimisation of parallel transmission radiofrequency pulses using neural networks”).
Regarding claim 9, Mirfin teaches a method for generating parallel transmit (pTx) radio frequency (RF) pulse waveforms for use with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system, the method comprising:
(a) accessing magnetic resonance data with a computer system, wherein the magnetic resonance data have been acquired with an MRI system [See B1+ spatial variations and B1+ maps. See also rest of reference.];
(b) accessing a neural network with the computer system, wherein the neural network has been trained on training data in order to learn a mapping from magnetic resonance data to pTx RF pulse waveforms [See parallel transmit spoke pulses. Discussion section, “We have proposed a new method for the sub-second design of large-tip-angle parallel transmit pulses based on learning the spatial variations within patient field maps.” See Method section. See also rest of reference.];
(c) applying the magnetic resonance data to the neural network using the computer system, generating output as pTx RF pulse waveforms [See parallel transmit spoke pulses. Discussion section, “We have proposed a new method for the sub-second design of large-tip-angle parallel transmit pulses based on learning the spatial variations within patient field maps.” See Method section. See also rest of reference.];
(d) storing the pTx RF pulse waveforms for use by the MRI system [See parallel transmit spoke pulses. Discussion section, “We have proposed a new method for the sub-second design of large-tip-angle parallel transmit pulses based on learning the spatial variations within patient field maps.” See Method section. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Mirfin further teaches wherein the magnetic resonance data accessed with the computer system include image data acquired with the MRI system [See B1+ spatial variations and B1+ maps. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 14, Mirfin further teaches wherein the neural network accessed with the computer system has been trained on training data consistent with the image data in order to learn the mapping from magnetic resonance data to pTx RF pulse waveforms based on field map data encoded in the image data [See Method, Results, and Discussion sections and Figs. 1-2. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 15, Mirfin further teaches wherein the magnetic resonance data accessed with the computer system comprise multichannel B1+ map data comprising multichannel B1+ maps [See B1+ spatial variations and B1+ maps. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 16, Mirfin further teaches wherein the neural network accessed with the computer system has been trained on training data consistent with the multichannel B1+ map data in order to learn the mapping from magnetic resonance data to pTx RF pulse waveforms [See Method, Results, and Discussion sections and Figs. 1-2. See also rest of reference.].
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 10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Mirfin, in view of Pendse (US 2020/0142057).
Regarding claim 10, Mirfin teaches the limitations of claim 9, which this claim depends from.
Mirfin further teaches the stored pTx RF pulse waveforms [See parallel transmit spoke pulses. Discussion section, “We have proposed a new method for the sub-second design of large-tip-angle parallel transmit pulses based on learning the spatial variations within patient field maps.” See Method section. See also rest of reference.].
However, Mirfin is silent in teaching further comprising generating at least one RF pulse with the MRI system by operating the MRI system based on the stored pTx RF pulse waveforms.
Pendse, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches further comprising generating at least one RF pulse with the MRI system by operating the MRI system based on the stored pTx RF pulse waveforms [claim 7. 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 Mirfin and Pendse because both references are in the field of designing pTx pulses in MRI and Pendse teaches it is known in the art to generate the designed pTx pulses using an MRI to generate MRI images [Pendse - claim 7. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 18, Mirfin teaches the limitations of claim 9, which this claim depends from.
Mirfin is silent in teaching wherein the neural network accessed with the computer system has been trained on training data using a loss function that incorporates a physics-based constraint.
Pendse, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the neural network accessed with the computer system has been trained on training data using a loss function that incorporates a physics-based constraint [¶0019, ¶0024, ¶0032. 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 Mirfin and Pendse because both references are in the field of designing pTx pulses in MRI and Pendse teaches it is known to predict SAR when designing pTx pulses for patient safety [Pendse - ¶0004, ¶0008, ¶0016-0017, ¶0022, claim 7. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 19, Mirfin and Pendse teach the limitations of claim 18, which this claim depends from.
Mirfin is silent in teaching wherein the physics-based constraint comprises at least one of a specific absorption rate constraint or a power constraint.
Pendse, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the physics-based constraint comprises at least one of a specific absorption rate constraint or a power constraint [¶0019, ¶0024, ¶0032. 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 Mirfin and Pendse because both references are in the field of designing pTx pulses in MRI and Pendse teaches it is known to predict SAR when designing pTx pulses for patient safety [Pendse - ¶0004, ¶0008, ¶0016-0017, ¶0022, claim 7. See also rest of reference.].
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Mirfin, in view of Blasche (US 2015/0219733).
Regarding claim 12, Mirfin teaches the limitations of claim 11, which this claim depends from.
However, Mirfin is silent in teaching wherein the image data accessed with the computer system include scout image data comprising scout images acquired with the MRI system.
Blasche, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the image data accessed with the computer system include scout image data comprising scout images acquired with the MRI system [¶0041-0042. 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 Mirfin and Blasche because both references are in the field of determining B1 data for MRI and because Blasche teaches it is known in the art that scout images can be used to select B1 settings [Blasche - ¶0041-0042. See also rest of reference.], which is a goal of Mirfin.
Regarding claim 13, Mirfin and Blasche teaches the limitations of claim 12, which this claim depends from.
However, Mirfin is silent in teaching wherein the scout images comprise anatomical images that depict subject anatomy.
Blasche, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the scout images comprise anatomical images that depict subject anatomy [¶0041-0042. 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 Mirfin and Blasche because both references are in the field of determining B1 data for MRI and because Blasche teaches it is known in the art that scout images can be used to select B1 settings [Blasche - ¶0041-0042. See also rest of reference.], which is a goal of Mirfin.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Mirfin, in view of Luke (“Motion Robust Parallel Transmission Excitation Pulse Design for Ultra-High Field MRI”).
Regarding claim 17, Mirfin teaches the limitations of claim 11, which this claim depends from.
Mirfin is silent in teaching wherein the training data comprise multichannel B1+ maps that are concatenated along a single spatial dimension such that the training data comprise two-dimensional data.
Luke, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the training data comprise multichannel B1+ maps that are concatenated along a single spatial dimension such that the training data comprise two-dimensional data [Fig. 1, and Methods section, wherein B1+ projections are concatenated. 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 Mirfin and Luke because both references are in the field of determining B1 data for MRI and Luke teaches it is known in the art to concatenate B1 data when performing pulse design [Luke - Fig. 1, and Methods section], similar to Mirfin.
Conclusion
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 2896