DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s remarks received on 06/25/2026 with respect to the amended independent claims have been acknowledged and are moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by the corresponding amendment. Currently claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected and claim 6 is cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
41066.. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (Automatic View Planning for Cardiac MRI Acquisition) and in further view of Lu 152’ (US Pub: 2012/0121152), Crooks et al (US Patent: 4,746,863); and Parker et al (US Patent: 5,167,232).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Lu et al teaches: A computer-implemented method for determining an orientation of at least one diagnostically relevant sectional plane for heart imaging in a three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging image dataset, the computer- implemented method comprising: providing the three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging image dataset [page 480: 2.1: p01]; applying a trained function to the three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging image dataset to determine a position of at least one landmark [page 480: p04]; determining the orientation of the at least one diagnostically relevant sectional plane as a function of the at least one landmark [page 483: p01, p03].
Lu et al provides scanner with plane prescription used for acquisition in terms of short/long axis view [page 483: p01]. In the same field of endeavor, Lu 152’ teaches: providing the orientation of the at least one diagnostically relevant sectional plane by providing at least one first scanning parameter value for controlling a magnetic resonance imaging system for recording a two-dimensional sectional image of the at least one diagnostically relevant sectional plane [p0028, p0029, p0034 (2D plan)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to implement Lu et al’s landmark based cardiac plane with scan prescription framework of Lu 152’ for automatically acquiring 2D cardiac views.
Lu et al in view of Lu 152’ does not specify parameter for steepness of magnetic field gradient. In the same field of endeavor, Crooks et al teaches: the at least one first scanning parameter including a direction and a steepness of a magnetic field gradient [col 6: lines 65-67, col 7: lines 1-4, 29-36, 54-57]. Therefore, given Crooks et al’s prescription on MRI control parameters used to realize a selected slice/plane with gradient direction to the plane and slope of gradient, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to use MRI control parameter to realize a plane in a scanner with automation.
Lu et al in view of Lu 152’ and Crooks et al does not disclose construction of 3D volume image. In the same field of endeavor, Parker et al teaches: determining an extent of a three-dimensional volume image perpendicular to the at least one diagnostically relevant sectional plane, wherein the three-dimensional volume image is spanned by the at least one diagnostically relevant sectional plane and the extent [col 2: lines 52-66; col 4: lines 38-54; 55-67; col 9: lines (x-y planar area of selected slab is the sectional plane and the slab along z-axis provides thickness and defines 3D.)]; and recording the three-dimensional volume image with the magnetic resonance imaging system as a function of the at least one first scanning parameter value [claim 1 (Apply magnetic field gradient and measure magnetic signal under gradient parameter.)].
Therefore, given Lu 152’s diagnostically relevant cardiac planes [fig. 1] and Parker et al’s disclosure on that giving a perpendicular slab thickness of an imaging plane and acquire 3D MR image, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Parker et al’s 3D slab acquisition technique to cardiac plane to obtain volumetric coverage of anatomy around a relevant plane for improved view.
Regarding claim 2 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Lu et al further teaches: The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging image dataset maps at least one part of a heart, and wherein the three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging image dataset is an overview scan of the at least one part of the heart [page 479: introduction, page 480: p01].
Regarding claim 3 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Lu et al further teaches: The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the at least one landmark is one of an apex, a mitral valve, an aortic valve, a pulmonary valve, or a tricuspid valve [page 479: introduction, page 480: p01].
Regarding claim 4 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Lu et al further teaches: The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the at least one diagnostically relevant sectional plane is one of a four chamber plane, a three chamber plane, a two chamber plane, a vertical long axis, a horizontal long axis, or a short axis [abstract].
Regarding claim 5 (previously presented), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Lu et al further teaches: The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the applying of the trained function comprises: determining the position of the at least one landmark in the three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging image dataset as a probability distribution for the position of the at least one landmark [page 482: p04].
Regarding claim 7 (previously presented), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Lu 152’ further teaches: The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one first scanning parameter value is derived from the orientation of the at least one diagnostically relevant sectional plane [p0028, p0029].
Regarding claim 8 (previously presented), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Huang further teaches: The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: recording the two-dimensional sectional image with the magnetic resonance imaging system as a function of the at least one first scanning parameter value; and providing the two-dimensional sectional image [p0152 (Determination of target scanning parameters for optimal orientation of an image is based on predetermined mathematical correlation.)].
Regarding claim 9 (currently amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Lu 152’ in view of Crooks et al and Parker et al further teaches: The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one first scanning parameter value is further derived from the extent and the computer implemented method further includes providing the three-dimensional volume image [Lu 152’: fig. 1; Crooks: fig. 3: Parker: col 2: lines 52-67]. Therefore, given Lu 152’s cardiac plane orientation; Crooks’ gradient magnitude adjustment for a slice width; and Parker et al’s selectable slab thickness in z-axis, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to derive scanning parameters from spatial extend to provide 3D MR volume images.
Regarding claim 10 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Lu et al further teach: The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the trained function is based on at least one of a neural convolutional network or a U-Network [page 480: p04, page 482: 2.2].
Claim 11 (previously presented) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 with Lu et al’s further teaching on: receiving at least one annotated three-dimensional training image dataset, wherein the at least one annotated three-dimensional training image dataset is based on the at least one three-dimensional training image dataset, and wherein the position of the at least one landmark is annotated in the at least one annotated three-dimensional training image dataset; training a function as a function of the at least one three-dimensional training image dataset and the at least one annotated three-dimensional training image dataset; and providing the trained function [page 482: 2.2].
Regarding claim 12 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 11 has been incorporated herein. Lu et al further teaches: The computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 11, further comprising: manually annotating the at least one three-dimensional training image dataset to create the at least one annotated three-dimensional training image dataset [page 482: 2.2].
Claim 13 (currently amended) was analyzed and rejected in regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14 (previously presented), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 13 has been incorporated herein. Lu et al further teaches: A magnetic resonance imaging system comprising: the determining system as claimed in claim 13, wherein the magnetic resonance imaging system is configured to acquire at least one of the three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging image dataset or a two-dimensional sectional image [page 482: 2.2].
Claim 15 (original) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Lu 152’s further teaching on: A non-transitory computer program product including a computer program, which is loadable into a memory of a determining system, the computer program including program segments that, when executed by the determining system, cause the determining system to perform the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 1 [p0038].
Claim 16 (original) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 15.
Regarding claim 17 (previously presented), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 15.
Regarding claim 18 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 7 has been incorporated herein. Claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 8.
Regarding claim 19 (previously presented), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 5 has been incorporated herein. Claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 9.
Regarding claim 20 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 9 has been incorporated herein. Claim 20 has been rejected with regard to claim 10.
Conclusion
5. There is a new ground of rejection necessitated by the corresponding amendment presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP 706.07(a).
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached on 571-272-7490. 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.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights