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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because he claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims are drawn to a "computer program product". The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer program product covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals perse in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent (see MPEP 2111.01). Because the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a signal perse, a rejection under 35 USC 101 is appropriate as covering non-statutory subject matter. See 351 OG 212, Feb 23 2010.
The Examiner suggests that Applicant amends the claims as follows: "non-transitory computer program product".
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 2, 4-10, 12-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for each in-phase group being acquired at a distinct echo time, does not reasonably provide enablement for “wherein the multi-echo gradient echo k-space data comprises multiple in-phase groups of k-space data acquired at echo times that are multiples of an interval when water and fat are in phase”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Regarding independent claims 12, 13, and 15, the claim disclose “wherein the multi-echo gradient echo k-space data comprises multiple in-phase groups of k-space data acquired at echo times that are multiples of an interval when water and fat are in phase”. The specification discloses that each of these echo times are distinct [see page 2 of specification]. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language would disclose that that data could be acquired at the same echo time. Taking these factors into account, undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of claims 12, 13 and 15.
Regarding independent claims 12, 13, and 15, the claims last limitation discloses constructing an “intermediate image”. An “intermediate” image would infer that this is not a final MRI image. Therefore, it is not clear if this “intermediate image” provides any relevant information and it is not clear the claims are missing any additional steps. Dependent claims 2, 4-10, and 16 are rejected for depending on one of said independent claims.
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 2, 4-10, 12-13, and 15-16 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 independent claims 12, 13, and 15, the claims last limitation discloses constructing an “intermediate image”. An “intermediate” image would infer that this is not a final MRI image. Therefore, it is not clear if this “intermediate image” provides any relevant information and it is not clear if more steps are required to perform the inventive method. Dependent claims 2, 4-10, and 16 are rejected for depending on one of said independent claims.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the clinical magnetic resonance image". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-10, 12-13, and 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claims 12, 13, and 15, the closest prior art is considered Deininger-Czermak (“Evaluation of ultrashort echo-time (UTE) and fast-field-echo (FRACTURE) sequences for skull bone visualization and fracture detection – A postmortem study”), which teaches imaging at multiple echo times to determine harder structures in the body such as bone which is similar to the current application. However, Deininger-Czermak is silent in teaching “wherein the multi-echo gradient echo k-space data further comprises at least one Dixon group of k-space data acquired at an echo time according to a Dixon magnetic resonance imaging protocol; calculate one or more Dixon images of the field of view from the at least one Dixon group of k-space data and a portion of the multiple in-phase groups of k-space data, wherein the one or more Dixon images comprise one or more of the following: an in phase Dixon image, an out of phase Dixon image, a fat image, a water image, a fat fraction image, a water fraction image, a T2-star map, and an R2-star map; reconstruct a preliminary magnetic resonance image for each of the multiple in-phase groups of k-space data; construct an averaged magnetic resonance image by averaging at least half of the preliminary magnetic resonance images; construct a temporary magnetic resonance image by using the preliminary magnetic resonance image with the longest echo time or by averaging less than half of the preliminary magnetic resonance images with the longest echo times; and construct an intermediate magnetic resonance image by subtracting the average magnetic resonance image from the temporary magnetic resonance image.” Dependent claims 2, 4-10, and 16 are considered allowable for depending on one of said independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0180694 and US 2015/0285883 also teaches acquiring images at different echo times but is also silent in teaching missing limitations in the independent claims.
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