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 .
Detailed Action
Overview
This is a first action on the merits (FAOM) to this instant application in which claims 1-8 are pending. Claim 1 is independent and claims 2-8 are dependent.
Applicant’s submitted drawings and specification and even claim language are not clear for examination of the claimed invention.
In the specification and claims, uses of reference numerals are confusing. Reference numerals do not stick to respective consistent parts but jump to different things in different places in the specification and claims.
Applicant’s drawings fail to meet US patent practice. Two drawing sheets appears to present two flowcharts. The flow charts lack description in the boxes. Each of the boxes in the flow charts should include descriptions regarding an act the particular box performs. Each box filled with number does not convey any direct useful information to a reader. Further, lines and the texts in the drawings are not clear. The number in each of the boxes, in each of these flowcharts, represents a step No. which, conventionally, can be placed inside or next to the boxes. Applicant should consult MPEP for generating drawing for patent application to be filed the USA.
The sole independent instant claim 1 contains three periods. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to understand how to interpret claimed invention and how to conduct Examiner’s search.
For the above reasons, the application is deemed fatally flawed and cannot be properly examined on the merits. To address the issues raised in this Office action, the Applicant should consider seeking help from a competent patent agent or attorney, if not done so already.
It needs to be mentioned that this is a national stage of an internation application. The international application received Search Report and Written Opinion from the Internation Searching Authority (ISA). It is customary for an Applicant to file Information Disclosure Statement (IDS); however, the Applicant has not filed any IDS.
Drawing Objections
a) The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “110”, “111”, and 112” have been used to designate both “display”1 and “T1”, “TE” and “TR”.
b) The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 2002.
c) The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l) because the lines and the text in the drawing are of poor quality in each of Figs. 1 and 2.
d) The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 1163.
e) The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “mouse clicks” of claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
f) The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “appropriate input device to provide historic MRI data or other MRI data” of claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
g) The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “client-side software program on the internet browser as a web-based application” of claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains multiple periods (.). See MPEP § 608.01(m) for guidance if required. Each claim should begin with a capital letter and ends with a period. A claim should be formed of just one single sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is further objected to because of the following informalities: “the display” on line 7 of the claim lacks a proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is further objected to because of the following informalities: “the scan parameters”, spanning lines 5-6, lacks a proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the appropriate input device” lacks a proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the tissue” lacks a proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: each of “the number of pixels” and “the volume” lacks a proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejection under 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.
Claims 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to the sole independent claim 1, the claim scope is unclear as the claim contains multiple periods(.) causing a clear confusion as to what the Applicant regards to be his/her/its invention. It is unclear if there are three different inventions in claim 1.
Further, it is unclear if the “the said images” on line 7 of the claim are truly same entity as the “the said images” on line 2. It appears that the method claim starts with “the said image”, line 2 of the claim, and finally synthesize the same “the said images”, line 7 of the claim. Therefore, the claimed invention does not make any sense. The issue must be addressed. The claim should be amended to clear up its scope. To clear up the confusion, the images on line 2 should be amended to characterize as “raw” images and the “images” on line 7 can be amended to characterize as “synthetic” images or “synthesized” images.
Further, the method claim (claim 1) does not connect any specific physical device(s) to carry out the steps of the image processing method. This is a deficiency that can place the claim in the category of mental work or an abstract idea, and thus may not be patentable under the US patent law as the claimed subject matter, i.e., abstract idea, not patent eligible according to US patent practice. Applicant should consider adding a computing device, or the likes described in the instant disclosure, in the claim for carrying out the method steps.
Further, it is unclear what is meant by: “contrasts are synthesized by combining T1, T2 and PD values and varying the scan parameters using Bloch equations (104)”. It is unclear as to contrasts of what entity are synthesized. Is it “contrast” of an image that is synthesized?
Further, it is unclear where the display of parametric maps (claim 1, line 4) are displayed relative to display of synthesized image (claim 1, line 7).
As to claims 2-8, these claims are defective as each of these claims depends from the defective claim 1.
Further, as to claim 3, the scope of the claim is unclear because it could not be understood what constitutes the historical MRI data and other MRI data and how they are integrated.
Further, as to claim 5, the scope of the claim is unclear because it could not be understood what constitutes a difference between native and acquired MRI parameters.
Rejection under 35 USC §102
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 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (US-2022/0180575-A1).
Zhang is published on 09 June 2022 which is before filing date of the instant claims which is 12 July 2024 and thus Zhang is available under 35 USC 102(a)(1).
Claim No.
Claim feature
Prior art
Zhang (US-2022/0180575-A1)
1
A method for processing MRI images comprising of:
Zhang discloses a method for processing MRI images as claimed.
Overall clarity of the claim is not clear, see non-prior art rejections and objections elsewhere in this Office action.
This prior art rejection is being made based on this Examiner’s best comprehension of the claimed invention.
magnetic resonance images acquired using an MRI system, the said images are used to determine relaxation times Tl, T2 and scaled proton density of each pixel and displayed as parametric maps (200 and 201).
This step is met by Zhang when it discloses step S13 in the flowchart in Fig. 1.
Also see various places including para [0035]4, in Zhang, where it is described to obtain T1, T2 and PD from “initial image” or raw image.
Fig. 2 in Zhang suggests displaying T1, T2 and PD maps.
contrasts synthesized by combining Tl, T2 and PD values and varying the scan parameters using Bloch equations (104).
This claim feature is met by Zhang as it discloses S15 in the flowchart in Fig.1.
the said images thus synthesized is displayed in the display (110, 111, 112).
This claim feature met by Zhang as it discloses displaying synthesized images on a display (350) see para [0097]5.
8
The method for producing MRI images, as claimed in claim 1, wherein, the said method on pre acquired MR images with no movement artefact to rapidly generate quantitative MR parametric maps with subsequent synthesis and display of MR images with filtering, enhancement, qualification and quantification of tissues.
Claim 8 is met by Zhang as it generates quantitative image or a synthetic image generated from parametric maps which are extracted from an initial image or raw image as claimed in the instant claim 8.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to G.M. HYDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached on (571) 272-3555. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
G.M. HYDER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2852
/G.M. A HYDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
1Examiner comment: see para [0041], [0042], [0043] in the PgPub (i.e., US-2025/0069193-A1) of the instant application where the numerals 110, 111 and 112 are indicated to represent T1, TE and TR respectively, whereas in the instant claim these items are indicated to represent display.
2Examiner comment: Reference numeral 200 is found in the specification (cf. para [0057] in the US-2025/0069193-A1) and in the claim (claim 1), however, the reference numeral 200 is not shown in any drawings.
3Examiner comment: Reference numeral 116 is found in the specification, however, this reference numeral is not found in any of the drawings.
4[0035] For example, a characteristic parameter (or quantitative value) of a corresponding voxel may be calculated by using a signal value of each pixel in the initial image data, and the distribution of the characteristic parameter on the image forms a quantitative map thereof. In an embodiment, the quantitative value or characteristic parameter may include T1, T2, and proton density.
5 [0097] The magnetic resonance imaging device 300 may include a display unit 350, which may be configured to display an operation interface and various data or images generated in the data processing process.