DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/22/2024 & 12/12/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
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 scanner, RF spectrometer, bore, thermal reservoir, a local generator, RF transmitter, an RF receiver, a TR switch, a circulator, an isolator, an analog to digital converter ("ADC"), a digital to analog converter ("DAC"), a single transmit signal channel, multiple transmit signal channels, a single receive channel, multiple receive channels, a data acquisition unit, a digital user interface, a patient table, a field gradient system, a field shim set, an EMI shield, a magnetic fringe field shield, a secure enclosure, a support suite, a radiofrequency coil, optimization image acquisition module, an intelligent system, and a quality assurance module 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: lack of definition for the abbreviation “HTSC.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 45-47 are objected to because of the following informalities: list of alternatives lack a conjunction such as “or” or “and.” Appropriate correction is required. For the purposes of compact prosecution, claim will be interpreted with “or.”
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: lack of definition for the abbreviation “HTSC.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim 27, 29, 36, 44, 46, 47-52, & 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). This can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015), see MPEP § 2161(I).
With regards to Claim 27, the claim recites “determine acquisition parameters through at least one of integration of MR physics, Al search strategies, patient derived statistics, or electronic health records”; however, the instant specification fails to explain the steps/procedure for performing the “determine acquisition parameters” based on “integration of MR physics, Al search strategies, patient derived statistics, or electronic health records,” i.e. computer function, in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. More specifically, the instant specification fails to provide any details how the acquisition parameters are determined based on integration of MR physics, Al search strategies, patient derived statistics, or electronic health records. Moreover, the instant specification is silent to any details regarding integration of MR physics, Al search strategies, patient derived statistics, or electronic health records. One of ordinary skill in the art would not deem the instant specification having sufficient detail so that they could understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.
Claim 27 also recites “denoise MR data to accelerate acquisitions using at least one of native or learned noise structures”; however, the instant specification fails to explain the steps/procedure for performing the “using at least one of native or learned noise structures” to denoise MRI data, i.e. computer function, in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. More specifically, the instant specification fails to provide any details how the denoising is achieved via native or learned noise structures. One of ordinary skill in the art would not deem the instant specification having sufficient detail so that they could understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.
Since the instant specification fails to provide a finite sequence of steps for performing the “determine acquisition parameters through at least one of integration of MR physics, Al search strategies, patient derived statistics, or electronic health records” & “denoise MR data to accelerate acquisitions using at least one of native or learned noise structures,” the aforementioned claim fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
With regards to Claim 29, the claim recites “wherein the autonomous MRI software application is configured to at least one of (i) exploit transfer learning to leverage native noise denoising, or (ii)integrate at least one of cognizance, reflectivity, adaptivity or ethical compliance rules to transform the MR system into an intelligent system” however, the instant specification fails to explain the steps/procedure for performing the “intelligent slice planning,” i.e. computer function, in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. More specifically, the instant specification fails to provide any details of how to achieve intelligent slice planning. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not deem the instant specification having sufficient detail so that they could understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.
Claim 32 recites similar limitations and are rejected under the same rationale as Claim 29.
With regards to Claim 35, the claim recites “wherein at least one of the self-scanning is accomplished by the interplay between a user-node, a cloud and the scanner with a user-node controlling the other two components; or the monitoring of the scanner is performed by the use of acquisition associated with a pattern recognition technique” however, the instant specification fails to explain the steps/procedure for performing the “interplay” and using “acquisition associated with a pattern recognition technique,” i.e. computer functions, in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. More specifically, the instant specification fails to provide any details of how to achieve self-scanning via an interplay between a user-node, a cloud and the scanner with a user-node controlling the other two components. For example, what is an interplay and how said interplay achieve self-scanning.
Similarly, the instant specification fails to provide any details regarding the pattern recognition technique, let alone how the pattern recognition technique achieves the monitoring.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not deem the instant specification having sufficient detail so that they could understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.
With regards to Claim 36, the claim recites “utilize pattern recognition outputs of an acquisition to classify patterns associated with a system status and a degradation status” however, the instant specification fails to explain the steps/procedure for “utilize[ing] pattern recognition outputs” and using “acquisition associated with a pattern recognition technique… to classify patterns associated with a system status and a degradation status,” i.e. computer functions, in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. More specifically, the instant specification mentions various hardware or networking components that can degrade, but fails to disclose how they degrade and, more importantly, what degradation patterns are recognize and how the patterns are recognized. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not deem the instant specification having sufficient detail so that they could understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.
With regards to Claim 44, the claim recites “integrate electromagnetic simulation and pattern recognition-based acquisition” and “utilize pattern recognition methods including at least one of fingerprinting, frequency swept pulses, or selective excitation” however, the instant specification fails to explain the steps/procedure for “integrate electromagnetic simulation and pattern recognition-based acquisition” or “utilize pattern recognition methods including at least one of fingerprinting, frequency swept pulses, or selective excitation,” i.e. computer functions, in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. More specifically, the instant specification fails to provide details regarding the electromagnetic simulation and how it is integrated, details regarding the fingerprinting, frequency swept pulses, or selective excitation pattern recognition techniques and how they are integrated into the scanner. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not deem the instant specification having sufficient detail so that they could understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.
With regards to Claim 46, similarly, the claim recites “pattern recognition methods” without the instant specification providing sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the pattern recognition function to be performed. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not deem the instant specification having sufficient detail so that they could understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not deem the instant specification having sufficient detail so that they could understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.
With regards to Claim 47, similarly, the claim recites “exploit system priors… or subject prior” and “integrate intelligence in image reconstruction” without the instant specification providing sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the pattern recognition function to be performed. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not deem the instant specification having sufficient detail so that they could understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.
With regards to Claim 51, the claim recites “wherein the maps facilitate clinical assessment or enable inclusion of Electronic Health Record obtained and MR data to predict trends and outcomes” without the instant specification providing sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended prediction of trends and outcomes are achieved. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not deem the instant specification having sufficient detail so that they could understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.
With regards to Claim 52, the claim recites “estimating gradient warp and non-linearities through calibration and deep learning” without the instant specification providing sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the deep learning to estimate gradient warp. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not deem the instant specification having sufficient detail so that they could understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.
With regards to Claim 56, the claim recites “translate MR data and images into clinically meaningful metrics to characterize structure, function or metabolism of an anatomy of interest;” “utilize deep learning to calibrate quantitative imaging outcomes per subject and per population,” and “generate a subject- readable report using deep learning that combines subject information, imaging data or radiologist's expertise”; without the instant specification providing sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended:
the translation of MR data and images into clinically meaningful metrics to characterize structure, function or metabolism of an anatomy of interest is achieved;
the deep learning calibrates quantitative imaging outcomes per subject and per population; and
the deep learning generate a subject- readable report learning that combines subject information, imaging data or radiologist's expertise.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not deem the instant specification having sufficient detail so that they could understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.
Applicant is directed to 37 CFR 1.57(b), which establishes incorporation by reference of essential material:
““Essential material” may be incorporated by reference, but only by way of an incorporation by reference to a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, which patent or patent application publication does not itself incorporate such essential material by reference. “Essential material” is material that is necessary to:
(1) Provide a written description of the claimed 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 set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) ;
(2) Describe the claimed invention in terms that particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) ; or
(3) Describe the structure, material, or acts that correspond to a claimed means or step for performing a specified function as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(f) .”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 4, 6-7, 13, 20, 22, 29, 32, 35 ,45, 46-53, & 55 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.
With regards to Claim 4, the claim recites “wherein a bore of the magnet at least one of improves ergonomics, reduces claustrophobia, or reduces at least one of weight, size or cost of the magnet”; however, such a limitation does not meet threshold requirement of clarity and precision as laid out in MPEP § 2173.02. The content of the instant application alone or in combination with the state of the art does not apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of limitations because the language is so ambiguous, vague, and indefinite that it cannot provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent. More specifically, the instant specification fails to establish how the bore improves ergonomics or reduces claustrophobia (see ¶ [0031] as published). Moreover, there is no comparison for “reduc[ing] at least one of weight, size or cost of the magnet” established by the instant specification (see ¶ [0071] as published). Therefore, Claim 4 does not satisfy the notice function under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), thus, rendering Claim 4 indefinite.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim cannot be examined on the merits because one of ordinary skill in the art cannot establish the context of the claim language within light of the instant specification.
With regards to Claim 6, the claim recites “wherein the magnet has a cooling system, which has at least one of cryo-plate cooling, liquid H2 cooling, or solid N2 cooling, or does not have He2 cooling”; however, such a limitation is indefinite because the conjunction “or” is recited twice making the list of alternatives unclear.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the magnet has a cooling system, which has at least one of cryo-plate cooling, liquid H2 cooling, or solid N2 cooling.”
With regards to Claim 7, the claim recites “wherein the magnet has at least one of an operating temperature of higher than 4.2K, relaxed manufacturing tolerances, or reduced cryostat”; however, such a limitation does not meet threshold requirement of clarity and precision as laid out in MPEP § 2173.02. The content of the instant application alone or in combination with the state of the art does not apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of “relaxed manufacturing tolerances” or “reduced cryostat” because the language is so ambiguous, vague, and indefinite that it cannot provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent. More specifically, the instant specification is silent as to a point of comparison of relaxed manufacturing tolerances. Moreover, the instant specification discloses “[C]ompared to a conventional Niobium Titanium, helium cooled magnet, the HTSC magnet may require less cryostat size, complexity and cost”; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the claims are referring to said comparison when evaluating “reduced cryostat” and would not be ablet to establish what is being reduced within the context of claim language.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the magnet has at least one of an operating temperature of higher than 4.2K.”
With regards to Claim 13, the claim recites “conduct spatial beam steering”; however, it is unclear how beam steering is achieve in MRI without any supporting disclosure to define the claimed limitation. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted without this limitation
With regards to Claim 20, the claim recites “wherein the other MR systems include scanners which are synchronized”; however, it is unclear what “synchronized” refers to because the instant specification does not define such a limitations. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim cannot be examined on the merits.
With regards to Claim 22, the claim recites “wherein the MR system is at least one of operationally sustainable, reliable, or deliverable using a transportation vehicle”; however, such a limitation does not meet threshold requirement of clarity and precision as laid out in MPEP § 2173.02. The content of the instant application alone or in combination with the state of the art does not apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of “operationally sustainable, reliable, or deliverable using a transportation vehicle” because the language is so ambiguous, vague, and indefinite that it cannot provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent. More specifically, the instant specification fails to establish a scope of sustainable, reliable, or deliverable. Therefore, Claim 22 does not satisfy the notice function under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), thus, rendering the claim indefinite.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim cannot be examined on the merits because one of ordinary skill in the art cannot establish the context of the claim language within light of the instant specification.
With regards to Claim 29, the claim recites “integrate at least one of cognizance, reflectivity, adaptivity or ethical compliance rules to transform the MR system into an intelligent system”; however, such a limitation does not meet threshold requirement of clarity and precision as laid out in MPEP § 2173.02. The content of the instant application alone or in combination with the state of the art does not apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of “cognizance” because the language is so ambiguous, vague, and indefinite that it cannot provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent. More specifically, the instant specification discloses that “MRI software application can incorporate cognizance through intelligent slice planning” (see ¶ [0039] of published instant specification); however, the metes and bounds of “intelligent slice planning” is unclear because there is no standard for intelligence which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the metes and bounds of “intelligent slice planning.”. Similarly, “reflectivity through intelligent protocolling” is unclear for at least the same reason.
With respect to “adaptivity,” the instant specification discloses “adaptivity through user intervention for MR exams”; however, it is unclear how or what “user interventions” yield adaptivity and how it is integrated into the autonomous MRI software application.
With respect to “ethical compliance rules,” the instant specification is explicitly silent to defining ethical compliance rules but does mention “ethical behavior through patient information encryption in speech to text or text to speech transformations.” It is unclear whether the instant specification is attempting to relate ethical compliance rules to ethical behavior; regardless, one of ordinary skill in the art would not equate compliance rules to behavior to establish a clear disclaimer or scope.
Finally, the claim recites “an intelligent system” and, as noted above, there is no disclosed standard for intelligence which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the metes and bounds of “intelligent system.”
Accordingly, Claim 29 does not satisfy the notice function under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), thus, rendering the claim indefinite.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the autonomous MRI software application is configured to exploit transfer learning to leverage native noise denoising.”
Claim 32 recites similar limitations and are rejected under the same rationale as Claim 29.
With regards to Claim 32, the claim recites “optimize for increased value a ratio of diagnostic information to a cost” is unclear because it is an incomplete phrase. ¶ [0040] of the published instant specification also discloses the same language; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot interpret the intended language of the claim language. Moreover, it is unclear what how “qualitative MR contrasts” can be related to a numeric ratio when qualitative, by definition, is not a quantifiable measure.
The claim also recites “performing consistency checks, flagging degradation or escalating potential failure modes”; however, such a limitation does not meet threshold requirement of clarity and precision as laid out in MPEP § 2173.02. The content of the instant application alone or in combination with the state of the art does not apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of “performing consistency checks,” “flagging degradation,” and “escalating potential failure modes” because the language is so ambiguous, vague, and indefinite that it cannot provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent. More specifically, the instant specification is silent to further defining said terms and, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to establish metes and bounds of “performing consistency checks, flagging degradation or escalating potential failure modes.” For example, how is consistency checked and what is being checked; how is degradation determined and what standard establishes degradation (see ¶ [0041] of the published instant specification); and how are potential failure modes escalated, to what are they escalated, and what is a potential failure mode, what is failing; and the like?
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the autonomous MRI software application is configured to at least one of: (i) incorporate at least one of taskability through voice interaction, or ethical behavior through patient information encryption in speech to text or text to speech transformations.” Other limitations recited in the original claim cannot be interpreted to permit examination on the merits because the limitations are uninterpretable.
With regards to Claim 35, the claim recites “wherein at least one of the self-scanning is accomplished by the interplay between a user-node, a cloud and the scanner with a user-node controlling the other two components; or the monitoring of the scanner is performed by the use of acquisition associated with a pattern recognition technique”; however, the term “interplay” is unclear as it fails to establish a definite functional relationship therebetween. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the monitoring of the scanner is performed by the use of acquisition associated with a pattern recognition technique.”
With regards to Claim 45, the claim recites “gold-standard spin and gradient echo sequences”; however, such a limitation does not meet threshold requirement of clarity and precision as laid out in MPEP § 2173.02. The content of the instant application alone or in combination with the state of the art does not apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of “gold-standard” because the language is so ambiguous, vague, and indefinite that it cannot provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent. More specifically, gold-standard is a relative term and the instant specification fails to provides examples or teachings that can be used to measure a degree of gold-standard.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the single echo achieves acquisition times of an order of the echo times of the desired contrast.”
With regards to Claim 46, the claim recites “using conventional and simultaneous transmit and receive methods”; however, such a limitation does not meet threshold requirement of clarity and precision as laid out in MPEP § 2173.02. The content of the instant application alone or in combination with the state of the art does not apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of “conventional” because the language is so ambiguous, vague, and indefinite that it cannot provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent. More specifically, instant specification fails to provides examples or teachings that can be used to measure a degree of conventional.
Claim 46 also recites “a vendor-neutral, open source library”; however, such a limitation is indefinite because the instant specification only examples the “vendor-neutral standards” as Pulseq which does not constitute a clear disclaimer of scope, i.e. an explicit definition.
Claim 46 also recites “gauge and detect system degradation including the deterioration of the coils, or console, using pattern recognition methods”; however, such a limitation is indefinite because the instant specification fails to define “system degradation” or “deterioration of the coils, or console” to permit one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the metes and bounds of the recited claim limitations.
Claim 46 also recites “estimate temperature using new pulse sequences to provide safety checks above and beyond specific absorption rate methods”; however, such a limitation is indefinite because the term “new pulse sequences” is unbounded because there is no definition which establishes what is old and what is new.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the scanner is configured to at least one of utilize pattern recognition acquisition-reconstruction methods to produce quantitative tissue parametric maps to simultaneously generate qualitative and quantitative MR data; generate acquisitions in a web-browser to enable cloud generation of acquisition files; or utilize pattern recognition methods to generate tissue specific magnetization evolutions to provide quantitative imaging parameters including T1-map, T2-map, or apparent diffusion coefficient map.”
With regards to Claim 47, the claim recites “exploit system priors including B0 or B1 fields, or subject priors including anthropomorphic details, or cardiac motion pattern, to integrate intelligence in image reconstruction”; however, such a limitation does not meet threshold requirement of clarity and precision as laid out in MPEP § 2173.02. The content of the instant application alone or in combination with the state of the art does not apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of “exploit” because the language is so ambiguous, vague, and indefinite that it cannot provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent. More specifically, instant specification fails to clearly define how system priors, subject priors, or cardiac motion pattern are exploit let alone what it means to exploit said limitations. Furthermore, the claim also recites “integrate intelligence.” As detailed with Claim 29 and other claims, there is no standard for intelligence which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the metes and bounds of how to “to integrate intelligence in image reconstruction.”
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the scanner is configured to acquire images in inhomogeneous fields using deep learning.”
With regards to Claim 48, the claim recites “wherein the deep learning is configured to at least one of obtain accurate and robust reconstruction in the presence of noise and motion, speed up acquisition or provide repeatable quantitative imaging measures”; however, such a limitation does not meet threshold requirement of clarity and precision as laid out in MPEP § 2173.02. The content of the instant application alone or in combination with the state of the art does not apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of “accurate and robust reconstruction,” “speed up acquisition,” and “provide repeatable quantitative imaging measures” because the language is so ambiguous, vague, and indefinite that it cannot provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent. More specifically, instant specification fails to clearly define a standard to quantify accurate, robust, speed, and repeatable or a threshold to judge the characteristics against.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim cannot be examined on the merits because the claim is uninterpretable.
With regards to Claim 49, the claim recites “to accelerate image reconstruction computation and reduce artifacts due to aliasing or gridding” and “in an accelerated manner”; however, such a limitation does not meet threshold requirement of clarity and precision as laid out in MPEP § 2173.02. The content of the instant application alone or in combination with the state of the art does not apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of “accelerate[d]” and “reduce” because the language is so ambiguous, vague, and indefinite that it cannot provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent. More specifically, instant specification fails to clearly define a standard to quantify accelerate & reduce or a threshold to judge the characteristics against.
Moreover, the claim also recites “non-Cartesian data”; however, the instant specification fails to define non-Cartesian data rendering its metes and bounds undefined.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as “utilize cloud or local computing to perform reconstruction methods related to Cartesian.”
With regards to Claim 50, the claim recites “transformation of raw data to clinically valuable and interpretable quantitative parametric maps or statistics”; however, such a limitation does not meet threshold requirement of clarity and precision as laid out in MPEP § 2173.02. The content of the instant application alone or in combination with the state of the art does not apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of “clinically viable” because the language is so ambiguous, vague, and indefinite that it cannot provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent. More specifically, instant specification fails to clearly define a standard to quantify clinically viable or a threshold to judge the characteristics against.
Similarly, Claim 50 also recites “global (file) standards” without the instant specification clearly defining a standard for “global.”
Moreover, the parenthetical terms “(file)” and “(DICOM)” are indefinite because it is unclear whether the terms in the parentheses are required or optional.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as “wherein the reconstruction methods include conforming to global (file) standards on acquisition, reconstruction, image analysis or communication (DICOM)”
With regards to Claim 53, the claim recites the following undefined terminology: “guarantee standardization,” “consistent,” “baseline image quality,” “downstream,” “reference and non-reference methods,” “potential scanner degradation,” ”system degradation.” The instant specification fails to either define the terms or establish a standard of comparison such as via quantification or a corresponding threshold. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim and its dependents cannot be examined on the merits.
With regards to Claim 55, the claim recites “multiple diagnostic applications” without defining a the metes and bounds of diagnostic application. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim cannot be examined on the merits.
Dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency to abovementioned claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. More specifically, parent claim 38 is cancelled. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Accordingly, Claim 39-42 cannot be examined on the merits
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 10-13, 16, 18-19, 21, 23-27, 29, 31-32, 35, 44-46, 49-52, & 56-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ravi et al. (“Autonomous magnetic resonance imaging,” (November 2020 ), Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Volume 73, Pages 177-185; hereinafter "Ravi1"; see IDS 12/12/2024) .
With regards to Claim 1, a magnetic resonance ("MR") system for diagnostic imaging (intelligent physical MRI systems; see Ravi1 pg. 178, ¶ 2), comprising:
a magnet configured to generate a magnetic field to a subject (intelligent physical MRI systems; see Ravi1 pg. 178, ¶ 2; it is notorious in the art of MRI that MRI systems have a magnet);
a radio frequency ("RF") analog spectrometer configured to generate RF pulses to the subject (intelligent physical MRI systems; see Ravi1 pg. 178, ¶ 2; it is notorious in the art of MRI that MRI systems have a RF pulse generator to generate RF pulses);
a scanner configured to detect (i) a resultant field associated with the magnetic field and (ii) resultant pulses associated with the RF pulses (intelligent physical MRI systems; see Ravi1 pg. 178, ¶ 2; it is notorious in the art of MRI that MRI systems have an RF antenna to detect resultant resonance signal); and
an autonomous MRI software application (An autonomous system {i.e. MRI software} performs decision-making processes by optimizing for one or more metrics; see Ravi1 pg. 182, ¶ 3) configured to:
a) be activated through a remote mode of operation (user remotely operates the autonomous MRI system from a user node remote from the scanner; see Ravi1 pg. 182, ¶ 2 cont. pg. 183, ¶ 1 & caption of FIG. 6), and
b) instruct the scanner to remotely detect the resultant field and the resultant pulses (remote request acquisition of raw MRI data; see Ravi1 pg. 183, ¶ 1).
Claims 57-58 recite similar limitations and are rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1.
With regards to Claim 101, wherein the spectrometer has at least one of a an RF transmitter, an RF receiver, a TR switch, a circulator, an isolator, an analog to digital converter ("ADC"), a digital to analog converter ("DAC"), a single transmit signal channel, multiple transmit signal channels, a single receive channel, or multiple receive channels (the set up for the self-administered exam utilized a Siemens thirty-two channel DirectConnect head-neck coil {i.e. multiple transmit/receive channels} and an MR-safe plastic chair; see Ravi1 pg. 184, ¶ 3).
With regards to Claim 111, wherein the spectrometer is configured to at least one of transmit and receive simultaneously, transmit and receive sequentially, or transmit simultaneously (In-vivo axial volume data from one human brain was acquired using a standard Gradient Recalled Echo (GRE) sequence {i.e. sequential T/R}; see Ravi1 pg. 179, ¶ 2).
With regards to Claim 121, wherein the spectrometer is configured to isolate transmit and receive by at least one of time, phase, frequency, space (geometry), or signal magnitude (In-vivo axial volume data from one human brain was acquired using a standard Gradient Recalled Echo (GRE) sequence {i.e. slice selective, phase, & frequency encoding gradients}; see Ravi1 pg. 179, ¶ 2).
With regards to Claim 131, wherein the spectrometer is configured to at least one of transmit a magnitude modulated signal, transmit a phase modulated signal (GRE sequences rely on a 90deg flip angle; see Ravi1 pg. 179, ¶ 2), transmit a time modulated signal, transmit a spatially modulated signal, transmit a frequency modulated signal, adjust receiver gain, adjust a receiver frequency and bandwidth, receive a signal modulated in time, receive a phase adjusted signal, or conduct spatial beam steering.
With regards to Claim 161, further comprising at least one of a data acquisition unit, a digital user interface, a patient table, a field gradient system (In-vivo axial volume data from one human brain was acquired using a standard Gradient Recalled Echo (GRE) sequence {i.e. gradient encoding}; see Ravi1 pg. 179, ¶ 2), a field shim set, an EMI shield, a magnetic fringe field shield, a secure enclosure, a support suite, or a radiofrequency coil.
With regards to Claim 181, wherein the MR system is configured to be networked with other MR systems using a cloud network (cloud connected AMRI setup to connect user node {e.g. smart device} to scanner via cloud; see Ravi1 pg. 178, ¶ 4; wherein multiple scanners around the world are contemplated; see Ravi1 pg. 177, ¶ 1-2); the protocols are scanner agnostic; see Ravi1 pg. 180, ¶ 3).
With regards to Claim 191, wherein the MR system is networked using wireless or wired networking protocols (cloud connected AMRI setup to connect user node {e.g. smart device} to scanner via cloud; see Ravi1 pg. 178, ¶ 4; it is notorious in the art of smart devices that these devices connect to the cloud via wireless connections).
With regards to Claim 2111, wherein the scanners are configured to communicate using the cloud network to exchange at least one of protocols, data or predictive analysis (the cloud generates pulse sequences and performs image reconstructions while the scanner acquires the raw data; see Ravi1 Abstract).
With regards to Claim 231, wherein the mode of operation is at least one of a voice command, a visual user-interface command, a QR code, a smart device (A taskable MR scanner must be able to interact with the user via one or more input modalities (voice/text/gestures etc.) and interpret possibly high-level and vague instructions; see Ravi1 pg. 182, ¶ 2).
With regards to Claim 241, wherein the mode of operation does not require human input to at least one of acquire, reconstruct (the cloud generates pulse sequences and performs image reconstructions while the scanner acquires the raw data; see Ravi1 Abstract), assess or report data (It is also able to report to the user in case of demands (with respect to acquisition time) that cannot be met; see Ravi1 pg. 182, ¶ 2).
With regards to Claim 251, wherein:
the autonomous MRI software application has an optimization image acquisition module for higher MR values (An autonomous system performs decision-making processes by optimizing for one or more metrics. This enables the system to take the best decisions to ensure that they are useful and relevant in optimizing for that metric(s). In this work, we tasked the AMRI to optimize for MR value; see Ravi1 182, ¶ 2); and
the higher MR values are diagnostic information per unit cost or unit time (MR value – defined as the ratio of actionable diagnostic information to the costs incurred (including the time involved in acquiring that information; see Ravi1 pg. 178, ¶ 2).
With regards to Claim 261, wherein the optimization image acquisition module interacts with a scanner on a cloud (Look Up Tables (LUTs) were constructed to accomplish intelligent pulse sequence parameter tuning and adhering to acquisition time constraints (Tmax).).
With regards to Claim 271, wherein the autonomous MRI software application is configured to at least one of:
(i) determine acquisition parameters through at least one of integration of MR physics, Al search strategies, patient derived statistics, or electronic health records, or
(ii) denoise MR data to accelerate acquisitions using at least one of native or learned noise structures (An autonomous system performs decision-making processes by optimizing for one or more metrics… the acquired noise from the ISP acquisition is used to compute the SNR. This enables the LUT to compute contrast values that reflect real-world scenarios. A combination of acquisition parameters that jointly satisfy the SNR, contrast and acquisition time criteria is obtained by searching the LUT; see Ravi1 pg. 182, ¶ 2 cont. pg. 183, ¶ 1 & caption of FIG. 6).
With regards to Claim 291, wherein the autonomous MRI software application is configured to exploit transfer learning to leverage native noise denoising (An autonomous system performs decision-making processes by optimizing for one or more metrics… the acquired noise from the ISP acquisition is used to compute the SNR. This enables the LUT to compute contrast values that reflect real-world scenarios. A combination of acquisition parameters that jointly satisfy the SNR, contrast and acquisition time criteria is obtained by searching the LUT; see Ravi1 pg. 182, ¶ 2 cont. pg. 183, ¶ 1 & caption of FIG. 6).
With regards to Claim 311, wherein the autonomous MRI software application is configured to incorporate cognizance through intelligent slice planning (intelligent slice planning; see Ravi1 pg. 184, ¶ 6).
With regards to Claim 321, wherein the autonomous MRI software application is configured to incorporate at least one of cognizance through intelligent slice planning (intelligent slice planning; see Ravi1 pg. 184, ¶ 6), reflectivity through intelligent protocolling (reflective AMRI with intelligent protocolling; see Ravi1 FIG. 5 caption), adaptivity through user intervention for MR exams (Adaptable: AMRI requests the user to clarify misinterpreted voice commands; see Ravi1 FIG. 5 caption), taskability through voice interaction (Taskable: AMRI registers subject information via voice interaction and requests the user's approval to proceed with the working parameters ; see Ravi1 FIG. 5 caption), or ethical behavior through patient information encryption in speech to text or text to speech transformations (Ethical: AMRI masks the subject's name with a unique ID, encrypts subject information and leverages a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA); see Ravi1 FIG. 5 caption).
With regards to Claim 351, wherein monitoring of the scanner is performed by the use of acquisition associated with a pattern recognition technique (Implementation of Intelligent Slice Planning (ISP). (a) ISP was treated as a multi-class classification problem using an Extreme Learning Machine (ELM). (b) The ELM is trained on pairs of in-vivo axial brain images and their corresponding slice positions in the axial brain volume. The trained ELM is then tasked with predicting the slice position of a previously unseen in-vivo axial brain image, which is then used to determine the radio frequency offsets for slice planning {i.e. monitoring}; see Ravi1 FIG. 2 caption).
With regards to Claim 441, wherein the scanner is configured to at least one of acquire images in inhomogeneous fields; integrate electromagnetic simulation and pattern recognition-based acquisition; capture image in highly non-uniform magnetic fields to account for a short bore length; utilize pattern recognition methods including at least one of fingerprinting, frequency swept pulses, or selective excitation; or encode one whole image in a single echo with multiple receiver coils (In-vivo axial volume data from one human brain was acquired using a standard Gradient Recalled Echo (GRE) sequence {i.e. sequential T/R}; see Ravi1 pg. 179, ¶ 2).
With regards to Claim 451, wherein the single echo at least one of achieves acquisition times of an order of the echo times of the desired contrast (In-vivo axial volume data from one human brain was acquired using a standard Gradient Recalled Echo (GRE) sequence {i.e. sequential T/R}, wherein the desired contras was generated via LUT; see Ravi1 pg. 179, ¶ 2-3).
With regards to Claim 461, wherein the scanner is configured to at least one of generation of acquisition files (Examples of such input modalities could be interacting via voice (this work), keyboard input, a webform {i.e. web browser based UI for input at the user node}, integration with health information systems, etc.; see Ravi1 pg. 178, ¶ 4); utilize pattern recognition methods to generate tissue specific magnetization evolutions to provide quantitative imaging parameters including T1-map, T2-map, or apparent diffusion coefficient map;
With regards to Claim 4947, wherein the deep learning is configured to utilize cloud or local computing to perform reconstruction methods related to Cartesian (The user node voice interacts with the user and presents the image reconstructions {i.e. images are reconstructed in Cartesian coordinates} at the end of the AMRI exam; see Ravi1 Abstract).
With regards to Claim 5049, wherein the reconstruction methods include at least one of conforming to global (file) standards on acquisition, reconstruction, image analysis or communication (DICOM); or transformation of raw data to clinically valuable and interpretable quantitative parametric maps or statistics (The cloud generates pulse sequences and performs image reconstructions while the scanner acquires the raw data; see Ravi1 Abstract).
With regards to Claim 5149, wherein the maps facilitate clinical assessment or enable inclusion of Electronic Health Record obtained and MR data to predict trends and outcomes (Sitrep contains identifying information and records the sequence of events during an autonomous MR exam as key-value pairs; see Ravi1 pg. 180; ¶ 3).
With regards to Claim 5249, wherein the reconstruction methods are configured to estimate quantitative MR parameters jointly through randomization of acquisition parameters (Experiment #3 (11:30) was designed to force a situation wherein the LUT was exhausted in attempting to derive a combination of parameters that met both the SNR criterion and the time constraint; see Ravi1 pg. 180 ¶ 2 & 4), estimating gradient warp and non-linearities through calibration and deep learning, or motion estimation through signal analysis from the gradient and radiofrequency coils.
With regards to Claim 561, wherein the autonomous MRI software application is configured to at least one of translate MR data and images into clinically meaningful metrics to characterize structure, function or metabolism of an anatomy of interest; utilize deep learning to calibrate quantitative imaging outcomes per subject and per population; generate a subject- readable report using deep learning that combines subject information, imaging data or radiologist's expertise (Future work involves protocol optimization and implementing deep-learning solutions to generate a first read radiologist's report for AMRI; Ravi1 pg. 185, ¶ 2); provide a digital health record that evolves over time to record a transition of health to disease and potential reversal; or be accessed via an application store on a smart device by users in a configurable manner.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 5-9, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravi1 in further view of Saunders et al. (US PGPUB 20200249293; hereinafter "Saunders") .
With regards to Claim 21, while Ravi1 discloses all of the limitations of intervening claim 1 as shown above, it appears that Ravi1 may be silent to wherein the magnet is at least one of a superconducting, a solenoid, or a short solenoid with a nonuniform field of less than 5ppm. However, Saunders teaches of a portable MgB2 MRI superconducting magnet that can be transported in a container (see Saunders ¶ [0070 & 0173]).
Ravi1 and Saunders are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of MRI. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ravi1 to incorporate the above teachings of Saunders to provide at least a superconducting magnet. Doing so would aid cooling using modern cryo-cooling devices {i.e. thermal reservoir} without costly liquid helium and an operating temperature of 40 K (see Saunders ¶ [0070]).
Claims 5-9 & 17 recite similar limitations and are rejected under the same rationale as Claim 2.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravi1 in further view of Constable et al. (“Design of a novel class of open MRI devices with nonuniform Bo, field cycling, and RF spatial encoding,” (May 2019), ISMRM Annual Meeting & Exhibition; hereinafter "Constable").
With regards to Claim 31, while Ravi1 discloses all of the limitations of intervening claim 1 as shown above, it appears that Ravi1 may be silent to wherein field nonuniformities of the magnet are used for spatial encoding. However, Constable teaches of MRI system design which leverages non-uniform main magnet field B0 for spatial encoding (see Constable Synopsis).
Ravi1 and Constable are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of MRI. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ravi1 to incorporate the above teachings of Constable to provide at least nonuniformities of the magnet are used for spatial encoding. Doing so would aid in lower cost MR device (see Constable Synopsis).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravi1 in further view of Ogier et al. (“A Frequency Translation System for Multi-Channel, Multi-Nuclear MR Spectroscopy,” (26 May 2020), IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering (Volume: 68, Issue: 1, January 2021); hereinafter "Ogier").
With regards to Claim 141, while Ravi1 discloses all of the limitations of intervening claim 1 as shown above, it appears that Ravi1 may be silent to wherein the spectrometer is configured to, using a broad-band receiver or transmitter, at least one of receive multiple nuclear resonance frequencies or excite multiple nuclear resonance frequencies.
However, Ogier teaches of a multi-channel and multi-nuclear {i.e. multi-frequency} MRI scanner capable of detecting 1H and 13C (see Ogier Abstract).
Ravi1 and Ogier are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of MRI. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ravi1 to incorporate the above teachings of Ogier to provide at least spectrometer is configured to, using a broad-band receiver or transmitter, at least one of receive multiple nuclear resonance frequencies or excite multiple nuclear resonance frequencies. Doing so would aid in improving sensitivity (see Ogier pg. 110, ¶ 1).
Claims 15 & 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravi1 in further view of Philips (<https://web.archive.org/web/20140505062006/https://www.mathworks.com/company/user_stories/philips-healthcare-develops-smart-digital-rf-power-subsystem-for-mri-systems.html> (5 May 2014), retrieved 19 June 2026).
With regards to Claim 151, while Ravi1 discloses all of the limitations of intervening claim 1 as shown above, it appears that Ravi1 may be silent to wherein the spectrometer is controlled by a field programmable gate array ("FPGA").
However, Philips teaches of “innovative digital RF power subsystem for MRI machines. Implemented in VHDL® and deployed on an FPGA” (see Philips pg. 1, ¶ 3).
Ravi1 and Philips are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of MRI. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ravi1 to incorporate the above teachings of Philips to provide at least a spectrometer is controlled by a field programmable gate array. Doing so would aid in design modifications and tradeoffs before hardware testing, and to accelerate implementation of the validated design on their FPGA (see Philips pg. 1, ¶ 6).
Claim 36 recites similar limitations and are rejected under the same rationale as Claim 15.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravi1 in further view of Le et al. (“Deep Learning–based Method for Denoising and Image Enhancement in Low-Field MRI,” (27 December 2021), 2021 IEEE International Conference on Imaging Systems and Techniques (IST); hereinafter "Le").
With regards to Claim 471, while Ravi1 discloses all of the limitations of intervening claim 1 as shown above, it appears that Ravi1 may be silent to wherein the scanner is configured to acquire images in inhomogeneous fields using deep learning.
However, Le teaches of deep learning–based method for denoising and image enhancement in low-field MRI to remove artifacts due to B0 field inhomogeneities (see Le Abstract).
Ravi1 and Le are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of MRI. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ravi1 to incorporate the above teachings of Le to provide at least acquire images in inhomogeneous fields using deep learning. Doing so would aid in removing artifacts therefrom.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHISH S. JASANI whose telephone number is (571) 272-6402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm (CST).
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, Keith Raymond can be reached on (571) 270-1790. 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.
/ASHISH S. JASANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights