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 09/08/2026, with respect to the previous 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous prior art rejection of claim 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same reference combination applied in the prior rejection of record.
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 9, 11, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinding (“DeepControl: 2DRF pulses facilitating B+1 inhomogeneity andB0 off-resonance compensation in vivo at 7 T”), in view of Mirfin (“Optimisation of parallel transmission radiofrequency pulses using neural networks”).
Regarding claim 9, Vinding teaches a method for generating transmit 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 Figs. 1, wherein the B0 and B1 maps are input. 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 RF pulse waveforms [See Figs. 1, wherein the neural network is used to map B0/B1 maps to output RF pulse waveforms. See also rest of reference.];
(c) applying the magnetic resonance data to the neural network using the computer system, generating output as RF pulse waveforms [See Figs. 1, wherein the neural network is used to map B0/B1 maps to output RF pulse waveforms. See also rest of reference.];
(d) storing the RF pulse waveforms for use by the MRI system [See Section 2.4 Experiments and Sections 2.4.2-2.4.4 where experiments were performed using the DL RF pulse waveforms. See also rest of reference.]; and
(e) generating at least one RF pulse with the MRI system by operating the MRI system based on the stored RF pulse waveforms [See Section 2.4 Experiments and Sections 2.4.2-2.4.4 where experiments were performed using the DL RF pulse waveforms. See also rest of reference.].
However, Vinding is silent in teaching parallel transmit (pTx).
Mirfin, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches parallel transmit (pTx) radiofrequency pulses [See parallel transmit spoke pulses. 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 Vinding and Mirfin because both references are in the field of using neural networks in MRI and because Vinding teaches currently working on extending the framework to parallel transmit pulses with acceleration for shorter pulse duration [Vinding – Section 4. Page 3315. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Vinding and Mirfin teach the limitations of claim 9, which this claim depends from.
Vinding and Mirfin both teach s wherein the magnetic resonance data accessed with the computer system include image data acquired with the MRI system [Vinding – See B0 and B1+ maps. Mirfin - See B1+ spatial variations and B1+ maps. See also rest of references.].
Regarding claim 14, Vinding and Mirfin teach the limitations of claim 11, which this claim depends from.
Vinding 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 RF pulse waveforms based on field map data encoded in the image data [Vinding – Fig. 1 and Sections. 2.1 – 2.3. See also rest of reference.].
However, Vinding is silent in teaching parallel transmit (pTx).
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 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.].
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 Vinding and Mirfin because both references are in the field of using neural networks in MRI and because Vinding teaches currently working on extending the framework to parallel transmit pulses with acceleration for shorter pulse duration [Vinding – Section 4. Page 3315. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 15, Vinding and Mirfin teach the limitations of claim 9, which this claim depends from.
Vinding further teaches wherein the magnetic resonance data accessed with the computer system comprise B1+ map data comprising B1+ maps [See B1+ maps. See also rest of reference.].
However, Vinding was silent in teaching multichannel.
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.].
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 Vinding and Mirfin because both references are in the field of using neural networks in MRI and because Vinding teaches currently working on extending the framework to parallel transmit pulses with acceleration for shorter pulse duration [Vinding – Section 4. Page 3315. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 16, Vinding and Mirfin teach the limitations of claim 15, which this claim depends from.
Vinding further teaches wherein the neural network accessed with the computer system has been trained on training data consistent with the B1+ map data in order to learn the mapping from magnetic resonance data to pTx RF pulse waveforms [Vinding – Fig. 1 and Sections. 2.1 – 2.3. See also rest of reference.].
However, Vinding was silent in teaching multichannel.
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 parameters[See Method, Results, and Discussion sections and Figs. 1-2. 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 Vinding and Mirfin because both references are in the field of using neural networks in MRI and because Vinding teaches currently working on extending the framework to parallel transmit pulses with acceleration for shorter pulse duration [Vinding – Section 4. Page 3315. See also rest of reference.].
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Vinding, in view of previously cited Mirfin, and in further view of Blasche (US 2015/0219733).
Regarding claim 12, Vinding and Mirfin teach the limitations of claim 11, which this claim depends from.
However, Vinding and Mirfin are 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 Vinding and Mirfin with the teachings of Blasche because all 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.].
Regarding claim 13, Vinding, Mirfin, and Blasche teach the limitations of claim 11, which this claim depends from.
However, Vinding and 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 Vinding and Mirfin with the teachings of Blasche because all 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.].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 a as being unpatentable over previously cited Vinding, in view of previously cited Mirfin, and in further view of Luke (“Motion Robust Parallel Transmission Excitation Pulse Design for Ultra-High Field MRI”).
Regarding claim 17, Vinding and Mirfin teach the limitations of claim 16, which this claim depends from.
Vinding and Mirfin both teach the training data comprise two-dimensional data [Vinding – See B0 and B1+ maps. Mirfin - See B1+ spatial variations and B1+ maps. See also rest of references.].
Vinding and Mirfin is silent in teaching wherein the training data comprise multichannel B1+ maps that are concatenated along a single spatial dimension.
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 [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 Vinding and Mirfin with the teachings of Luke because all 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 Vinding and Mirfin.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Vinding, in view of previously cited Mirfin, and in further view of Pendse (US 2020/0142057).
Regarding claim 18, Vinding and Mirfin teach the limitations of claim 9, which this claim depends from.
Vinding teaches SAR and power as constraints.
However, Vinding and Mirfin are 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 Vinding and Mirfin with the teachings Pendse because all 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.]. Further, Vinding does teach incorporating constraints such as SAR and power [Vinding – Section 4. Page 3315. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 19, Vinding, Mirfin, and Pendse teach the limitations of claim 18, which this claim depends from.
Vinding and 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 [Vinding – See SAR or power. Pendse - ¶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 Vinding and Mirfin with the teachings Pendse because all 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.]. Further, Vinding does teach incorporating constraints such as SAR and power [Vinding – Section 4. Page 3315. See also rest of reference.].
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, 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.
/RISHI R PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights