Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
Overview
This is a first action on the merits (FAOM) to this instant application in which claim 1-10 and 12-17 are pending. Claims 1, 13 and 15 are independent and claims 2-10, 14, and 16-17 are dependent. Claim 11 is missing in the original filing.
Pending independent claims 1, 13 and 15 involves an invention in the MRI field that intends to generate a first and a second composite images using multispectral data.
A thorough prior art search is performed by this Examiner. Examiner’s search did not result in locating a reference that renders any of the independent claims unpatentable. However, this application, as filed originally, skips a claim, i.e., claim 11. This violates claim numbering rule, see MPEP §608.01(j). This issue must be resolved before the application may be allowed.
Regarding missing claim 11:
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Claim Rejection under 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §112(a):
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 12, the claim depends from a non-existent claim 11. It could not be comprehended at all as to what the scope of claim 12 is because its base claim is missing. If there is support for the missing claim 11, the Applicant may add it. If claim 11 is added, it can be at the end of the present listing. If not so, the Applicant can cancel claim 12 or amend claim 12 to depend from another claim. If the Applicant decides to amend claim 12 to depend from another claim, Applicant need not indicate any status for claim 11, and claim 11 will remain missing. At the time of allowance, the Examiner will renumber the claims removing any gap in the claim listing.
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 1-10 and 13-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to independent claim 1, the claim is being allowed because the prior art of the record neither discloses nor reasonably suggests a method for multispectral magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the method comprising:
(a) acquiring multispectral data from a subject using an MRI system, wherein the subject has a metal object implanted therein and wherein acquiring the multispectral data comprises:
acquiring first multispectral data with a first contrast weighting at a first set of spectral bins each corresponding to a different resonance frequency offset;
and acquiring second multispectral data with a second contrast weighting at a second set of spectral bins each corresponding to a different resonance frequency offset, wherein the second set of spectral bins is interleaved with the first set of spectral bins;
(b) reconstructing first spectral bin images from the first multispectral data, wherein the first spectral bin images depict the first contrast weighting;
(c) reconstructing second spectral bin images from the second multispectral data,
wherein the second spectral bin images depict the second contrast weighting;
(d) generating a first composite image from the first spectral bin images, wherein the first composite image has the first contrast weighting and reduced metal artifacts from the metal object; and
(e) generating a second composite image from the second spectral bin images,
wherein the second composite image has the second contrast weighting and reduced metal artifacts from the metal object.
The highlighted portion of the claim in bold lettering was deemed critical in determination of allowability of the claims.
As to dependent claims 2-10, these claims are being allowed because each of these claims, either directly or indirectly, depends from the allowed independent claim 1.
As to independent claims 13 and 15, these claims are being allowed because each of these claims contains subject like that of claim 1 for which claim is found to be allowable.
As to dependent claims 14 and 16-17, these claims being allowed because each of these claims depends from one of allowed independent claims 13 and 15.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Citation(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koch (US-2019/0146049-A1) discloses multispectral MRI imaging somewhat similar to that claimed in the instant claims. However, it does not discuss anything about generating a composite image from a first spectral bin image and a second spectral bin image as claimed in the instant claim 1.
Kock (US-2025/0306149-A1) discloses a multispectral MRI imaging somewhat similar to that claimed in the instant claims. It further discloses generating a composite image from multiple bin images. However, it does not disclose generating the composite image with reduced metal artifact. Further, this reference has same filing date as that of the instant claims.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to G.M. HYDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM- 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephanie Bloss can be reached on (571) 272-3555. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
G.M. HYDER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2852
/G.M. A HYDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights