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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without performing the pulse sequence disclosed in the independent claims and also receiving data and reconstructing MRI images using the received data, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding independent claims 1, 12, and 20, the claims do not disclose the steps of acquiring/receiving RF signals to then reconstruct and form a MRI image. Therefore, the claims are missing essential steps. Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 are rejected for depending on one of said independent claims.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moonen (US 5,570,019).
Regarding claim 1, Moonen teaches a method for interleaved flow-sensitive dephasing, the method comprising:
generating, via a sequence controller and through one or more radio frequency coils, a 90-degree excitation radio frequency pulse [Fig. 3, see 90 degree RF excitation pulse. See also rest of reference.];
generating, via the sequence controller and through one or more gradient amplifiers, a first pair of unipolar gradient pulses [See Figs. 3-4, wherein on each axis there are a pair of gradients that are immediately before and after each 180 degree RF refocusing pulse. See also rest of reference.];
generating, via the sequence controller and through the one or more radio frequency coils, a 180-degree radio frequency pulse [Fig. 3, see first 180 degree RF excitation pulse. See also rest of reference.];
generating, via the sequence controller and through the one or more gradient amplifiers, a second pair of unipolar gradient pulses [See Figs. 3-4, wherein on each axis there are a pair of gradients that are immediately before and after each 180 degree RF refocusing pulse. See also rest of reference.];
performing a step of generating, via the sequence controller and through the one or more radio frequency coils, a refocusing radio frequency pulse [Fig. 3, see second 180 degree RF excitation pulse. See also rest of reference.]; and
repeating the step of generating the refocusing radio frequency pulse [Fig. 3, see third 180 degree RF excitation pulse. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 2, Moonen further teaches wherein the first pair of unipolar gradient pulses are in a phase-encoding direction and a partition-encoding direction [See Figs. 3-4, wherein on each axis there are a pair of gradients that are immediately before and after each 180 degree RF refocusing pulse. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Moonen further teaches wherein the second pair of unipolar gradient pulses are in the phase-encoding direction and the partition-encoding direction [See Figs. 3-4, wherein on each axis there are a pair of gradients that are immediately before and after each 180 degree RF refocusing pulse. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 4, Moonen further teaches wherein one of the first pair of unipolar gradient pulses is in a negative direction and a second of the first pair of unipolar gradient pulses is in a positive direction [See Figs. 3, wherein one pair on G(phase 2) are negative and one pair on G(slice) is positive. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 5, Moonen further teaches wherein the one or more gradient amplifiers comprises a first gradient amplifier and a second gradient amplifier [Since there are gradient pulses in different directions, there will be gradient amplifiers for each direction. See also rest of reference.], and wherein the method further comprises toggling, via the sequence controller, at least one of a first polarity of the first gradient amplifier and a second polarity of the second gradient amplifier at each time of repetition in the repeating the step of generating the refocusing radio frequency pulse [Fig. 3, see the only gradients around third 180 degree RF refocusing pulse in G(phase 2) direction. These gradients are similarly applied to G(phase 1) as well. The gradients referenced are similar to applicant’s Fig 1B-C for the repeated refocusing RF pulse. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 6, Moonen further teaches wherein in response to the toggling, a first-order gradient moment (m1) is exerted in different angles [Fig. 3, see the only gradients around third 180 degree RF refocusing pulse in G(phase 2) direction. These gradients are similarly applied to G(phase 1) as well. The gradients referenced are similar to applicant’s Fig 1B-C for the repeated refocusing RF pulse. Therefore, a similar outcome of different angles of gradient moments is exerted. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Moonen further teaches wherein the first pair of unipolar gradient pulses are generated closer in time to the 180-degree radio frequency pulse relative to the 90-degree excitation radio frequency pulse [Figs. 3-4, wherein the pairs of gradient pulses are closer to each 180 degree pulse, rather than the 90 degree excitation pulse. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 8, Moonen further teaches wherein the second pair of unipolar gradient pulses are generated closer in time to the 180-degree radio frequency pulse relative to a first of the refocusing radio frequency pulse [Figs. 3-4, since there is a pair of gradient pulses on each axis, there is a second pair of gradient pulses that is closer to the first 180 degree RF pulse than the second 180 degree RF pulse. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 9, Moonen further teaches wherein the first pair of unipolar gradient pulses are generated between the 90-degree excitation radio frequency pulse and the 180-degree radio frequency pulse, and wherein the second pair of unipolar gradient pulses are generated between the 180-degree radio frequency pulse and the first of the refocusing radio frequency pulse [See Figs. 3-4, wherein the temporal gradient placement is similar to applicant’s Figures 1B-1C. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, Moonen further teaches further comprising generating an MRI image [See Fig. 5A and corresponding description. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Moonen further teaches wherein the MRI image is a T1-weighted contrast image [Col. 7, lines 11-13 states “A TR of 2200 ms was chosen, resulting in an amount of T1 weighting similar as in the multi-echo experiment.” Therefore, the multi-echo sequence included T1 weighting. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 12, the same reasons for rejection of claim 1 also apply to claim 12. Claim 12 is merely the article of manufacture version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the same reasons for rejection of claim 2 also apply to claim 13. Claim 13 is merely the article of manufacture version of method claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, the same reasons for rejection of claim 3 also apply to claim 14. Claim 14 is merely the article of manufacture version of method claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, the same reasons for rejection of claim 4 also apply to claim 15. Claim 15 is merely the article of manufacture version of method claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, the same reasons for rejection of claim 5 also apply to claim 16. Claim 16 is merely the article of manufacture version of method claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, the same reasons for rejection of claim 6 also apply to claim 17. Claim 17 is merely the article of manufacture version of method claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, the same reasons for rejection of claim 7 also apply to claim 18. Claim 18 is merely the article of manufacture version of method claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, the same reasons for rejection of claim 8 also apply to claim 19. Claim 19 is merely the article of manufacture version of method claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, the same reasons for rejection of claim 1 also apply to claim 20. Claim 20 is merely the system version of method claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6380739 teaches using unipolar gradients [Fig. 11] and WO 2011/049403 also teaches using unipolar gradients [Fig. 2].
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