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
This is the first action on the merits (FAOM) to this instant application in which claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 12 and 18 are independent and claims 2-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are dependent.
Each instant independent claims 1,12 and 18 suffers from serious clarity issues1 for which claims cannot be allowed at this stage of prosecution.
Drawing
The drawings are objected to because each of the block diagrams in Figs. 2-5 lacks adequate details. In each of these figures (Figs. 2-5) several rectangular or square blocks are presented; and each of these rectangular or square blocks is identified with only a random number which carries no useful information; and therefore, each block should have a descriptive language to aid readers with hints or suggestions regarding functional or structural features of the block.
Further, Fig. 1 is hybrid of block and schematic drawings. There are blocks in Fig. 1 which are identified with only numbers; and readability of Fig. 1 can be improved by giving the treatment suggested above for Figs. 2-5.
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 Rejection under 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.
Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to instant independent claim 1, the scope of the claim is unclear because it cannot be ascertained from that claim language what is meant by “pulse calculation of excitation pulse”.
An excitation pulse (also called a 90-degree pulse) in MRI field is an RF pulse that causes angle of magnetization of the hydrogen nucleus to tilt from B0 direction toward a direction perpendicular to B0 direction. Calculation, in general, is understandably performed only using measurable quantities of things that can be expressed in numbers. It is unclear what measurable quantities are being calculated by the pulse calculation of the excitation pulse. It is worth reminding us that results of a calculation are usually expressible in number(s). It is also unclear what a “pulse calculation” is. Instant specification does not provide adequate guidance regarding this pulse calculation. Therefore, scope of the claim remains a mystery and thus the subject matter of the claim (claim 1) is not patentable.
If the Applicant is intending to calculate any specific measurable parameter(s) of the excitation pulse, by using the above language, claims may be amended to clarify by adding the parameter(s) that should be calculated, based on the originally filed disclosure.
If such things as “pulse calculation of excitation pulse” is commonly used term in the MRI art, Applicant may cite at least one reference that clearly describe the term.
To overcome this §112 issue, the Applicant should amend claims, based on the disclosure originally filed, by providing additional clarifying language to clear up the confusion or remove this impasse; and/or explain meaning of phrase “pulse calculation of an excitation pulse” based on the disclosure originally filed.
Further, claim term, “partial measurement” is not clear. Applicant may amend the claim (claim 1) by adding clarifying language to give the term, “partial measurement” a concrete meaning. Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to explain partial measurement in relation to a complete measurement. If partial measurement is used to mean acquisition of partial k-space data, then Applicant may explain that based on the originally filed disclosure. If such things as “partial measurement” is commonly used term in the MRI art, Applicant may cite at least one reference that clearly describe the term.
As to independent claims 12 and 18, each of these claims contains the terms discussed above and hence scope of each of these claims is also unclear or indefinite.
As to dependent claims 2-11, 13-17 and 19-20, these claims are defective because each of these claims depends from one of the unclear independent claims 1, 12 and 18.
Citation(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant’s claims suffer from serious clarity issues, see rejection under 35 USC 112(b). Based on the disclosure, the Examiner cites the following references.
Grodzki (US-2014/0103928-A1) discloses a computer-implemented method for magnetic resonance measurement somewhat like that claimed in instant claim 1. It discloses acquisition of MRI data in segments A, B1, B2. Grodzki calls, each of segments B1 and B2 being a “partial measurement segment”. It mentions “excitation pulse”; however, does not say anything about calculating the “excitation pulse”.
Beck (US-2017/0082718-A1) discloses a computer-implemented method for magnetic resonance measurement somewhat like that claimed in instant claim 1. It discloses partial acquisitions M0, M1, M2, M3 etc.in the process of MRI imaging. It mentions application of an excitation pulse; however, it does not mention anything about pulse calculation of an excitation pulse.
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
1 See claim rejections under on 35 USC §112(b).
Prosecution Insights