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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an input interface, a reconstruction unit, a reduction unit and a super-resolution unit, an interpolation unit, a matrix unit, a transformation unit, an augmentation unit, a back-transformation unit and a cropping unit) in claims 11-13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., (US9746538) hereafter Wang1 in view of Wang (US20200319283) hereafter Wang2.
1. Regarding claim 1, Wang1 discloses a method (fig 1 shows a method) for generating magnetic resonance image data of an object under examination with increased resolution, comprising:
receiving oversampled k-space data of a region of interest of the object under examination, wherein the oversampled k-space data has been obtained by oversampling in a phase-encoding direction with a predetermined oversampling factor greater than 1 (fig 1 step 12, 14 and 16, col 3 lines 43 through col 4 lines 46 shows and discloses receiving oversampled k-space data of a region of interest of the object under examination, wherein the oversampled k-space data has been obtained by oversampling in a phase-encoding direction with a predetermined oversampling factor greater than 1 (i.e for example oversampling by a factor of 2) meeting the claim limitations);
reconstructing magnetic resonance image data based on the oversampled k-space data, with an image region enlarged by the oversampling factor relative to the region of interest (col 4 lines 66 through col 5 lines 3 discloses “for example an oversampling factor of two may result in the region being twice the size (i.e enlarged) of the reduced field of view. Due to the line density or other changes, there may not be a 1:1 ratio of oversampling factor to the region size” and steps 24, 26 , col 6 lines 35-61 discloses the reconstruction of the magnetic resonance image data of the oversampled k-space data in the prior step 12,14 and 16 meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of reconstruction are not required by the current claim);
generating reduced magnetic resonance image data by reducing the enlarged image region in the phase-encoding direction (col 5 lines “The coil sensitivity is estimated for the region greater than the reduced field of view due to the oversampling. For example with an oversampling factor of two, the region is twice as large in real space than the reduced field of view size (i.e the region is enlarged). Where the field of view is reduced along more than one direction, the resulting estimates of coil sensitivity are for a region greater than the reduced field of view along those multiple directions. For example, the field of view is reduced along the axial and lateral directions relative to the patient (i.e generating the coil sensitivity data (MRI data) for the reduced FOV (i.e generating the reduced magnetic resonance image data reduced by reducing the enlarged image region in the phase encoding direction) meeting the above claim limitations);
Wang2 disclose generating image data with increased resolution by applying a super-resolution method to the reduced magnetic resonance image data (fig 6, paras 0053, 0091 shows and discloses
PNG
media_image1.png
418
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
generating image data with increased resolution by applying a super-resolution method to the reduced magnetic resonance image data). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, Wang2 and Wang1 are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be an improved sharp image at para 0064. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of Wang2 in the method of Wang1 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
2. Claim 11 is a corresponding device claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. Wang1 shows the device in fig 4.
3. Claim 13 is a corresponding system claim of claim 11. Wang1 shows the system in fig 4.
4. Claim 14 is a corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. Wang1 discloses in col 8 lines 4-47 a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the steps of the method as claimed in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. 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.
/JAYESH PATEL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights