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 04/22/2026, with respect to the previous 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 04/22/2026, with respect to the previous 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 regarding the prior art rejection of independent claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Ludwig determines the hardware types (e.g., gradient coil types) applicable to a scanning protocol by simply reading pre-stored hardware identifiers from the protocol file itself. The protocol in Ludwig is not "applicable" to a coil type based on its scanning parameters; instead, it is explicitly and previously linked to a specific coil type just by including a named class instance (e.g., GR (ABC, 123)). In stark contrast, the claimed method dynamically determines the second gradient coil type(s) by analyzing the actual parameter values or ranges set or confirmed by the user - checking whether those parameters fall within the permissible ranges of candidate coil types (i.e., the at least one second gradient coil type). This is a fundamentally different technical approach from Ludwig.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show the above features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the claimed method dynamically determines the second gradient coil type(s) by analyzing the actual parameter values or ranges set or confirmed by the use) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Specifically, the claims do not disclose that the analyzing the parameter values or ranges set or confirmed by a user. The claim actually discloses “determining, based on an initial scanning protocol input by a user, at least one second gradient coil type applicable to the initial scanning protocol” and that the scanning protocol includes “an initial parameter value or range of each of at least one scanning parameter set or confirmed by a user”.
Therefore, because Ludwig teaches “the control program of the second MR system detects that the SP(ABC) HF-P(10000 W), GR(ABC, 123) classes or manifestations of the SP, HF-P, GR classes present in the measurement protocol MP1* are not suitable for the DEF scanner and extends the measurement protocol MP1* by adding new SP(DEF), HF-P(12500 W), GR(DEF, 456) manifestations to a second measurement protocol MP2* which is shown in FIG. 4.”, it is believed that Ludwig still teaches the limitations of amended claim 1. The same applies for independent claims 9 and 17.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 regarding the prior art rejection of dependent claim 3 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that secondary art Feiweier does not teach does not teach generating an intermediate scanning protocol that includes a parameter range derived from a specific gradient coil type. Instead, Feiweier focuses on runtime restriction of values to a common overlap range to achieve image consistency across devices.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Feiweier teaches that in the “compatibility mode” the control component is configured, on the creation of the image, to only allow values that lie within the overlap range for the component property of the system component. The scan protocol is updated to this limited overlap range, therefore a new (intermediate) scan protocol is determined based on a specific gradient coil type [Abstract, ¶0010. See also rest of reference.]. This new (intermediate) scan protocol can then be used on both systems if wanted [Abstract, ¶0010. See also rest of reference.].
The applicant further argues that paragraphs [0061], [0118], and [0119] of Feiweier describe a hybrid compatibility mode for irreconcilable hardware differences (e.g., different main magnetic field strengths), where two parallel (sub-)protocols are stored. This is a static storage of two separate protocols, not a dynamic generation of an intermediate protocol having a parameter range as recited in amended claim 3.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The hybrid computability mode is the combination of two corresponding scan protocols [¶0119], therefore a new (intermediate) scan protocol is determined by the combination of the two corresponding scan protocols. The rest of the reference also teaches about the parameter range values.
Therefore, the arguments regarding claim 3 are not considered persuasive and the prior art rejection of claim 3 stands.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 4 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 § 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 21-23 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.
Regarding claim 21, the claim discloses “the scanning parameters” however previous claim limitations disclose “at least one scanning parameter”. Therefore, the claim is considered indefinite.
Regarding claim 22, the claim discloses “a scanning parameter” and “the scanning parameter” however previous claim limitations disclose “at least one scanning parameter” and it is not clear if these are one-in-the-same. Therefore, the claim is considered indefinite.
Regarding claim 23, the claim discloses “the scanning parameters” however previous claim limitations disclose “at least one scanning parameter”. 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 1-2, 9-10, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ludwig (US 2017/0322278).
Regarding claim 1, Ludwig teaches a method for configuring a magnetic resonance (MR) scanning protocol, comprising:
determining a first gradient coil type of a first gradient coil currently connected to an MR device [¶0080-0081, see GR(DEF, 456) of the current DEF scanner. See also rest of reference.];
determining, based on an initial scanning protocol input by a user, at least one second gradient coil type applicable to the initial scanning protocol, wherein the initial scanning protocol includes an initial parameter value or range of each of at least one scanning parameter set or confirmed by a user, the initial parameter value or range of each scanning parameter included in the initial scanning protocol falls within a permissible range of each of the at least one second gradient coil type [¶0080-0081, see GR(ABC, 123) of the initial ABC scanner and of measurement protocol MP1*. “The control program of the second MR system detects that the SP(ABC) HF-P(10000 W), GR(ABC, 123) classes or manifestations of the SP, HF-P, GR classes present in the measurement protocol MP1* are not suitable for the DEF scanner and extends the measurement protocol MP1* by adding new SP(DEF), HF-P(12500 W), GR(DEF, 456) manifestations to a second measurement protocol MP2* which is shown in FIG. 4.” Fig. 3, wherein the MP1 has gradient pulses GP 1… GP n. See also rest of reference.]; and
determining a target scanning protocol based on the first gradient coil type, the at least one second gradient coil type, and the initial scanning protocol [¶0079-0082, see measurement protocol MP2*. See also rest of reference.]; and
obtaining an MR image of a target object by controlling the MR device to scan the target object according to the target scanning protocol [¶0090-0092. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 2, Ludwig further teaches wherein the determining a target scanning protocol based on the first gradient coil type, the at least one second gradient coil type, and the initial scanning protocol includes:
determining whether the first gradient coil type is included in the at least one second gradient coil type [¶0082, determining when the measurement protocol is transferred from ABC scanner to another ABC scanner. See also rest of reference.]; and
in response to determining that the first gradient coil type is included in the at least one second gradient coil type, determining the initial scanning protocol as the target scanning protocol [¶0082, determining when the measurement protocol is transferred from ABC scanner to another ABC scanner, then no conversion need to be made. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 9, the same reasons of rejection as claim 1 also applies to claim 9. Claim 9 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the same reasons of rejection as claim 2 also applies to claim 10. Claim 10 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, the same reasons of rejection as claim 1 also applies to claim 17. Claim 17 is merely the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the same reasons of rejection as claim 2 also applies to claim 18. Claim 18 is merely the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of method claim 2.
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 3, 5-6, 11, 13-14, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Ludwig, in view of Feiweier (US 2020/0143935).
Regarding claim 3, Ludwig teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Ludwig further teaches wherein the determining a target scanning protocol based on the first gradient coil type, the at least one second gradient coil type, and the initial scanning protocol includes: determining whether the first gradient coil type is included in the at least one second gradient coil type [¶0079-0081, see GR(ABC, 123) and see GR(DEF, 456) gradient coil types. See also rest of reference.]; in response to determining that the first gradient coil type is not included in the at least one second gradient coil type, generating an intermediate scanning protocol based on the first gradient coil type [See MP2*. See also rest of reference.].
However, Ludwig is silent in teaching wherein the intermediate scanning protocol includes a first parameter range of each of the at least one scanning parameter, and the first parameter range is within a permissible range of the first gradient coil type; and obtaining the target scanning protocol by converting, based on the intermediate scanning protocol, the initial scanning protocol.
Feiweier, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the determining a target scanning protocol based on the first gradient coil type, the at least one second gradient coil type, and the initial scanning protocol includes: determining whether the first gradient coil type is included in the at least one second gradient coil type [Abstract, ¶0010, ¶0061, ¶0118-0119, wherein there is no overlapping range. ¶0036 teaches the gradient components are the system components. See also rest of reference.]; in response to determining that the first gradient coil type is not included in the at least one second gradient coil type, generating an intermediate scanning protocol based on the first gradient coil type, wherein the intermediate scanning protocol includes a first parameter range of each of the at least one scanning parameter, and the first parameter range is within a permissible range of the first gradient coil type [¶0061, ¶0118-0119, wherein there is no overlapping range, then a hybrid scan protocol is determined based on the first gradient coil type. See (sub-) scan protocol values for the other imaging system. See rest of reference which teaches ranges of values. See also rest of reference.]; and obtaining the target scanning protocol by converting, based on the intermediate scanning protocol, the initial scanning protocol [¶0061, ¶0118-0119, see hybrid protocol which uses the (sub-) scan protocol values of the imaging system and (sub-) scan protocol values for the other imaging system. 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 Ludwig and Feiweier because both references are in the field of adjust parameter values for different components of MRI apparatuses and because Feiweier teaches it is known in the art to use value ranges for parameter values, which would lead to more options/flexibility when setting parameter values.
Regarding claim 5, Ludwig and Feiweier teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Ludwig teaches wherein the intermediate scanning protocol includes a first parameter of each of at least one scanning parameter [See parameter values of MP2*. See also rest of reference.], and the generating an intermediate scanning protocol based on the first gradient coil type includes: obtaining at least one reference protocol corresponding to the first gradient coil type, the at least one reference protocol including a reference value of each of the at least one scanning parameter [See parameter values of MP1*. See also rest of reference.]; and generating the intermediate scanning protocol by determining, based on the reference value of each of the at least one scanning parameter, the first parameter of each of the at least one scanning parameter [See parameter values of MP2*. See also rest of reference.].
Ludwig is silent in teaching a first parameter range and a reference range.
Feiweier further teaches a first parameter range and a reference range [See value range. See also rest of reference.]. Feiweier further teaches wherein the intermediate scanning protocol includes a first parameter range of each of at least one scanning parameter, and the generating an intermediate scanning protocol based on the first gradient coil type includes: obtaining at least one reference protocol corresponding to the first gradient coil type, the at least one reference protocol including a reference range of each of the at least one scanning parameter; and generating the intermediate scanning protocol by determining, based on the reference range of each of the at least one scanning parameter, the first parameter range of each of the at least one scanning parameter [¶0061. See also rest of reference which teaches hybrid compatibility modes. 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 Ludwig and Feiweier because both references are in the field of adjust parameter values for different components of MRI apparatuses and because Feiweier teaches it is known in the art to use value ranges for parameter values, which would lead to more options/flexibility when setting parameter values.
Regarding claim 6, Ludwig and Feiweier teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Ludwig further teaches wherein the intermediate scanning protocol includes a first parameter of each of at least one scanning parameter, the initial scanning protocol includes a second parameter of each of the at least one scanning parameter, and the obtaining the target scanning protocol by converting, based on the intermediate scanning protocol [See parameter values of MP1* and MP2*. See also rest of reference.].
However, Ludwig is silent in teaching a first parameter range, a second parameter range, and the obtaining the target scanning protocol by converting, based on the intermediate scanning protocol, the initial scanning protocol includes: for each of the at least one scanning parameter, determining an intersection range between the first parameter range and the second parameter range of the scanning parameter; and obtaining the target scanning protocol by updating, based on at least one intersection range of the at least one scanning parameter, the initial scanning protocol.
Feiweier further teaches wherein the intermediate scanning protocol includes a first parameter range of each of at least one scanning parameter [See value range. See also rest of reference.], the initial scanning protocol includes a second parameter range of each of the at least one scanning parameter [See value range. See also rest of reference.], and the obtaining the target scanning protocol by converting, based on the intermediate scanning protocol, the initial scanning protocol includes: for each of the at least one scanning parameter, determining an intersection range between the first parameter range and the second parameter range of the scanning parameter [See overlap range. See also rest of reference.]; and obtaining the target scanning protocol by updating, based on at least one intersection range of the at least one scanning parameter, the initial scanning protocol [See overlap range. ¶0008-0030, ¶0060-0064. 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 Ludwig and Feiweier because both references are in the field of adjust parameter values for different components of MRI apparatuses and because Feiweier teaches it is known in the art to use value ranges for parameter values, which would lead to more options/flexibility when setting parameter values.
Regarding claim 11, the same reasons of rejection as claim 3 also applies to claim 11. Claim 11 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, the same reasons of rejection as claim 5 also applies to claim 13. Claim 13 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, the same reasons of rejection as claim 6 also applies to claim 14 Claim 14 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, the same reasons of rejection as claim 3 also applies to claim 19. Claim 19 is merely the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of method claim 3.
Regarding claim 22, Ludwig and Feiweier teach the limitations of claim 5, which this claim depends from.
Ludwig is silent in teaching wherein the at least one reference protocol includes a plurality of reference protocols with a same scanning purpose as the initial scanning protocol, and a first parameter range of a scanning parameter in the intermediate scanning protocol is obtained by taking a union of reference parameter ranges of the scanning parameter in the plurality of reference protocols or averaging endpoint values of the reference parameter ranges.
Feiweier further teaches wherein the at least one reference protocol includes a plurality of reference protocols with a same scanning purpose as the initial scanning protocol, and a first parameter range of a scanning parameter in the intermediate scanning protocol is obtained by taking a union of reference parameter ranges of the scanning parameter in the plurality of reference protocols or averaging endpoint values of the reference parameter ranges [See computability mode, wherein the range values that are used are limited by the overlapping range. 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 Ludwig and Feiweier because both references are in the field of adjust parameter values for different components of MRI apparatuses and because Feiweier teaches it is known in the art to use value ranges for parameter values, which would lead to more options/flexibility when setting parameter values.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Ludwig, in view of previously cited Feiweier, and in further view of Hammes (US 2019/0235038).
Regarding claim 4, Ludwig and Feiweier teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Ludwig further teaches wherein the intermediate scanning protocol includes a first parameter of each of at least one scanning parameter, and the generating an intermediate scanning protocol based on the first gradient coil type includes: determining a calibration value of a system parameter corresponding to the first gradient coil type [See ABC type vs DEF type as the calibration value. See also rest of reference.]; and generating the intermediate scanning protocol by determining, based on the calibration value of the system parameter, the first parameter of each of the at least one scanning parameter [See ABC type vs DEF type as the calibration value. The parameter values are determined as a function of scanner type ABC vs. DEF. See Figs. 3-4 and corresponding descriptions. See also rest of reference.].
However, Ludwig is silent in teaching a first parameter range.
Feiweier further teaches a first parameter range [See value range. See also rest of reference.] and wherein the intermediate scanning protocol includes a first parameter range of each of at least one scanning parameter, and the generating an intermediate scanning protocol based on the first gradient coil type includes: determining a calibration value of a system parameter of the MR device corresponding to the first gradient coil type [The imaging system and other imaging system can be considered calibration values. See also rest of reference.]; and generating the intermediate scanning protocol by determining, based on the calibration value of the system parameter, the first parameter range of each of the at least one scanning parameter [¶0061, ¶0118-0119, see hybrid protocol which uses the (sub-) scan protocol values of the imaging system and (sub-) scan protocol values for the other imaging system. 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 Ludwig and Feiweier because both references are in the field of adjust parameter values for different components of MRI apparatuses and because Feiweier teaches it is known in the art to use value ranges for parameter values, which would lead to more options/flexibility when setting parameter values.
However, Ludwig and Feiweier are silent in teaching by performing system calibration on a reference MR device installed with a reference first gradient coil, wherein the reference first gradient coil is the currently connected first gradient coil or another gradient coil belonging to the first gradient coil type, and the reference MR device.
Hammes, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches by performing system calibration on a reference MR device installed with a reference first gradient coil, wherein the reference first gradient coil is the currently connected first gradient coil or another gradient coil belonging to the first gradient coil type, and the reference MR device [¶0011, ¶0016, ¶0023, ¶0038, and Fig. 2, wherein sensors are used to determine the hardware of the MRI. 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 Ludwig and Feiweier with the teachings of Hammes because all references are in the field of MRI and because all references determine what hardware is currently being used by the MRI to adjust protocol parameter, and Hammes teaches it is known in the art to use sensors to determine hardware aspects of the MRI [Hammes - ¶0011, ¶0016, ¶0023, ¶0038, and Fig. 2, wherein sensors are used to determine the hardware of the MRI. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 12, the same reasons of rejection as claim 4 also applies to claim 12. Claim 12 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 4.
Claims 8, 16, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Ludwig, in view of previously cited Hammes.
Regarding claim 8, Ludwig teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Ludwig further teaches wherein the controlling the MR device to scan the target object according to the target scanning protocol includes: obtaining a pre-stored calibration value of a system parameter of the MR device [See ABC type vs DEF type as the calibration value. See also rest of reference.]; updating the system parameter of the MR device to be consistent with on the calibration value of the system parameter [See ABC type vs DEF type as the calibration value. Measurement parameters of the protocols MP1* or MP2* are updated according to the ABC/DEF type. See also rest of reference.]; and controlling the MR device whose system parameter has been updated to scan the target object according to the target scanning protocol [¶0092, wherein the updated protocol MP2* is executed. See also rest of reference.].
However, Ludwig is silent in teaching wherein the pre-stored calibration value is determined by performing system calibration on a reference MR device installed with a reference first gradient coil, the reference first gradient coil is the first gradient coil or another gradient coil belonging to the first gradient coil type .
Hammes, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the pre-stored calibration value is determined by performing system calibration on a reference MR device installed with a reference first gradient coil, the reference first gradient coil is the first gradient coil or another gradient coil belonging to the first gradient coil type [¶0011, ¶0016, ¶0023, ¶0038, and Fig. 2, wherein sensors are used to determine the hardware of the MRI. 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 Ludwig with the teachings of Hammes because all references are in the field of MRI and because all references determine what hardware is currently being used by the MRI to adjust protocol parameter, and Hammes teaches it is known in the art to use sensors to determine hardware aspects of the MRI [Hammes - ¶0011, ¶0016, ¶0023, ¶0038, and Fig. 2, wherein sensors are used to determine the hardware of the MRI. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 16, the same reasons of rejection as claim 8 also applies to claim 16. Claim 16 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 8.
Regarding claim 23, Ludwig teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Ludwig is silent in teaching wherein the at least one second gradient coil type is determined based on the initial parameter values or ranges of the scanning parameters in the initial scanning protocol and a relationship between values or ranges of the scanning parameters and gradient coil types.
Hammes, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the at least one second gradient coil type is determined based on the initial parameter values or ranges of the scanning parameters in the initial scanning protocol and a relationship between values or ranges of the scanning parameters and gradient coil types [¶0016, The operating parameters can relate to hardware parameters of the MR device and/or to software parameters, such as available, installed software licenses. This can enable all relevant technical properties of the system to be represented and acquired. 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 Ludwig with the teachings of Hammes because all references are in the field of MRI and because all references determine what hardware is currently being used by the MRI to adjust protocol parameter, and Hammes teaches it is known in the art to use sensors to determine hardware aspects of the MRI [Hammes - ¶0011, ¶0016, ¶0023, ¶0038, and Fig. 2, wherein sensors are used to determine the hardware of the MRI. See also rest of reference.].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 21, the closest prior art is considered previously cited Ludwig and Feiweier. However, both references are silent in teaching wherein the system parameter is a gradient ramp rate, the scanning parameters include the system parameter, a center value of the first parameter range of the gradient ramp rate is equal to the calibration value of the gradient ramp rate.
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, 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