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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-9 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. Claim 1 is rejected because it is unclear what steps occur when the cross-talk condition is not fulfilled. In other words, it is unclear if the adapting steps are optional if and when cross-talk does not occur. Claims 7-9 inherit Claim 1’s issues.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) steps to operate a magnetic resonance facility for recording a dataset including multiple, simultaneous slices including steps of establishing a slice ordering rule, evaluating if the sequence includes a cross talk condition and if so, adapting the recording sequence to move/displace a slice group “centrally”. Such steps can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper to see if adjacent slices are next to one another in the acquisition ordering. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim fails to include any image acquisition step The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no other elements recited and merely implementing the abstract idea with a computer is not sufficient (MPEP 2106). Dependent Claims 2-6 fail to include additional limitations to quality the claims as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and merely relate to sequences that have not actually been performed (e.g. fat saturation, inversion recovery module, SPAIR) and other types of reordering (e.g. odd/even).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2022/0400970 to Carinci et al. “Carinci”.
As for Claim 1, Carinci discloses an MRI system and method for operating an MR device to acquire MR data slices simultaneously, evaluating a cross-talk condition for the sequence and if the cross-talk condition is fulfilled, the acquisition order is adapted according to an adaptation rule such that a larger temporal acquisition distance between the acquisition of the first slice and the second slice is provided (Abstract; Paragraphs [0009]-[0010] and [0016]). In one embodiment (Figs. 4-5), a slice group is displaced “centrally” to avoid the crosstalk between slices s13 and s14.
As for Claim 4, Carinci discloses an exemplary embodiment where slices are numbered according to their spatial arrangement in a stacking direction and a plurality of concatenations and taking into account acceleration factors and modulo (Paragraphs [0050]-[0055]). In one embodiment, a list of slice groups are sorted in an ascending or descending manner according to their lowest slice number results and if the concatenation number is one, two sub-lists are scheduled, one containing all even slice numbers and one containing uneven slices numbers (Paragraph [0020]). If the concatenation number is greater than one, slice groups according to the list are successively assigned to different concatenations in a defined order (Paragraph [0020]). Such disclosures are considered to read on the claimed limitations in tis broadest reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, Carinci makes it clear that other adaptation rules may also be applied including changing other slices/other slice groups further away than segment section 12c and its possible to change the position in time (Paragraph [0059]).
Regarding Claim 5, Carinci explains in preferred aspects, to evaluate the crosstalk criterion, wherein the reduced number of slices is defined as the total number of slices divided by the acceleration factor, it is checked whether a first integer, defined as the reduced number of slices, modulo a second integer, defined as the concatenation number, equals one (Paragraphs [0029], [0035] and [0055]).
With respect to Claim 6, Carinci discloses wherein the simultaneous, multi-slice technique includes a sequence section of the used magnetic resonance sequence resonance signals from a simultaneity number, which is equal to an acceleration factor, of at least two slices are measured simultaneously, wherein an acquisition order comprising an association of slices to respective sequence sections of at least one repetition sequence, wherein the at least one repetition sequence covers all slices of at least one associated concatenation, is determined using at least one ordering rule (Paragraph [0001]; Claim 1).
As for Claims 7-9, Carinci discloses wherein the MRI system control device includes at least one processor and at least one storage means with functional units (Paragraphs [0038]).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carinci in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0271741 to Paul et al. “Paul”.
As for Claims 2-3, Carinci discloses a simultaneous, multi-slice MRI system and method addressing cross-talk as described above. However, Carinci does not expressly disclose wherein the simultaneous, multi-slice acquisition includes a preparation pulse in a fat saturation, inversion recovery or SPAIR technique.
Paul teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to MRI systems and methods were conventional acquisitions include fat saturation techniques such as SPAIR (Paragraph [0052]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have implemented Carinci’s cross-talk correction techniques with other conventionally known MRI sequences such as SPAIR as described by Paul in order to minimize cross-talk artifacts in other MRI acquisitions. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,841,409. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims include independent claims which are directed to computer implemented MRI methods comprising steps to use an SMS imaging technique to acquire multiple slices and to address slice cross-talk by changing the order to slices. The presently pending claims specifically refer to moving the slice centrally where the patented subject matter is broadly refers to re-ordering which may include a central reordering. Thus, the claims are not considered to be patentably distinct. Claims 7-9 of the presently pending application also disclose the MRI system and NT-CRM specifics found in Claims 12-13 of the ‘409 patent. Thus, the claims are not considered to be patentably distinct.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,883,147. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims include independent claims which are directed to computer implemented MRI methods comprising steps to use an SMS imaging technique to acquire multiple slices and to address slice cross-talk by changing the order to slices. The presently pending claims specifically refer to moving the slice centrally where the patented subject matter is broadly refers to re-ordering which may include a central reordering. Thus, the claims are not considered to be patentably distinct. Claims 7-9 of the presently pending application also disclose the MRI system and NT-CRM specifics found in Claims 11-12 of the ‘147 patent. Thus, the claims are not considered to be patentably distinct.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER L COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approximately 8AM-5PM.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER L COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797