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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the sequence” should be amended to “the three-dimensional, slab-selective turbo spin echo sequence”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the terms “the sequence” should be amended to “the three-dimensional, slab-selective turbo spin echo sequence”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the terms “the sequence” should be amended to “the three-dimensional, slab-selective turbo spin echo sequence”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the sequence” should be amended to “the three-dimensional, slab-selective turbo spin echo sequence”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Busse (“Improved Slice Profile and Reduced Fast Spin Echo Spacing with Variable-Rate Selective Excitation”).
Regarding claim 1, Busse teaches a computer-implemented method for operating a magnetic resonance (MR) device for acquiring MR data, the method comprising:
determining a three-dimensional, slab-selective turbo spin echo sequence having at least one echo train [See Discussion section, wherein 3D imaging with slabs can be used. See also rest of reference.], each echo train comprising an excitation module with an excitation pulse preceding a readout module including multiple refocusing pulses and associated readout intervals [See single-shot fast spin echo (SSFSE) pulse sequence. See also rest of reference.], wherein: the excitation pulse is at least partly implemented as a variable rate selective excitation pulse, and the readout module immediately succeeds the excitation module [See VERSE and single-shot fast spin echo (SSFSE) pulse sequence. See also rest of reference.]; and
providing the sequence in electronic form as an output signal [See Methods, Results, and Discussion sections. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 2, Busse further teaches wherein the variable rate selective excitation pulse is determined by minimizing its duration [See Methods section, we developed an algorithm to perform VERSE reshaping to minimize pulsewidth. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Busse further teaches wherein the excitation pulse is completely implemented as a variable rate selective excitation pulse [See VERSE. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 5, Busse further teaches wherein the excitation pulse is completely implemented as a variable rate selective excitation pulse [See VERSE. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 8, Busse further teaches wherein providing the sequence in electronic form as an output signal comprises controlling a MR scanner to acquire magnetic resonance data using the sequence [See Methods, Results, and Discussion sections. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 9, Busse further teaches wherein providing the sequence in electronic form as an output signal comprises storing the sequence in a memory [See Methods, Results, and Discussion sections. The experiments were performed using a processor of the MRI, therefore, the pulse sequence is inherently stored. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, Busse further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with an executable program stored thereon, wherein, when executed, the program instructs a processor to perform the method of claim 1 [See rejection of claim 1. The experiments were performed using a processor of the MRI. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to claim 11. Claim 11 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Busse further teaches wherein the scanner comprises a main magnet configured to generate a main magnetic field, and acquisition equipment comprising a gradient coil assembly and a radio frequency coil assembly [Experiments were carried out on a 1.5T GE Twin-Speed scanner. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 13, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to claim 13. Claim 13 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Busse further teaches a magnetic resonance (MR) device comprising the apparatus of claim 13 [Experiments were carried out on a 1.5T GE Twin-Speed scanner. See also rest of reference.].
Supplemental 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoelscher (US 2017/0153306).
Regarding claim 1, Hoelscher teaches a computer-implemented method for operating a magnetic resonance (MR) device for acquiring MR data, the method comprising:
determining a three-dimensional, slab-selective turbo spin echo sequence having at least one echo train [¶0012 and ¶0025. See also rest of reference.], each echo train comprising an excitation module with an excitation pulse preceding a readout module including multiple refocusing pulses and associated readout intervals [¶0025 and Fig. 3. See also rest of reference.], wherein: the excitation pulse is at least partly implemented as a variable rate selective excitation pulse, and the readout module immediately succeeds the excitation module [¶0042-0043. See also rest of reference.]; and
providing the sequence in electronic form as an output signal [See Figs. 1-3. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Hoelscher further teaches wherein the excitation pulse is completely implemented as a variable rate selective excitation pulse [¶0042-0043. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 5, Hoelscher further teaches wherein the excitation pulse is completely implemented as a variable rate selective excitation pulse [¶0042-0043. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 8, Hoelscher further teaches wherein providing the sequence in electronic form as an output signal comprises controlling a MR scanner to acquire magnetic resonance data using the sequence [See Figs. 1-3. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 9, Hoelscher further teaches wherein providing the sequence in electronic form as an output signal comprises storing the sequence in a memory [See Figs. 1-3. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, Hoelscher further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with an executable program stored thereon, wherein, when executed, the program instructs a processor to perform the method of claim 1 [See rejection of claim 1. Figs. 1-3, the experiments were performed using a processor of the MRI. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to claim 11. Claim 11 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Hoelscher further teaches wherein the scanner comprises a main magnet configured to generate a main magnetic field, and acquisition equipment comprising a gradient coil assembly and a radio frequency coil assembly [See Fig. 1. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 13, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to claim 13. Claim 13 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Hoelscher further teaches a magnetic resonance (MR) device comprising the apparatus of claim 13 [See Fig. 1. See also rest of reference.].
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 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Busse, in view of Groß-Weege (“Algorithm for calculating a VERSE pulse with desired duration, energy and gradient properties”).
Regarding claim 4, Busse teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
However, Busse is silent in teaching wherein the excitation pulse comprises a first section implemented as a first half of a slab-selective excitation pulse having a constant gradient pulse and a second section implemented as a variable rate selective excitation pulse, and wherein the second section has a shorter duration than the first section.
Groß-Weege, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the excitation pulse comprises a first section implemented as a first half of a slab-selective excitation pulse having a constant gradient pulse and a second section implemented as a variable rate selective excitation pulse, and wherein the second section has a shorter duration than the first section [See Page 1. See also rest of reference].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Busse and Groß-Weege because both references are in the field of FSE/TSE sequences in MRI and Groß-Weege to only apply to VERSE algorithm to half of the pulse to shorten the calculation time [Groß-Weege - See Page 1. See also rest of reference].
Regarding claim 6, the same reasons for rejection as claim 4 also apply to claim 6.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Busse, in view of Park (US 2010/0013479).
Regarding claim 7, Busse teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
However, Busse is silent in teaching wherein the readout module comprises a Car-Purcell- Meiboom-Gill (CPMG) readout train.
Park, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the readout module comprises a Car-Purcell- Meiboom-Gill (CPMG) readout train [¶0006-0016. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Busse and Park because both references are in the field of FSE/TSE sequences in MRI and Park teaches it is known in the art that FSE/TSE sequences can satisfy CPMG conditions [Park - ¶0006-0016. See also rest of reference.].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2017/0010340 also teaches a 3D TSE pulse sequence that uses VERSE.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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 2858
Prosecution Insights