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 phrase “a plurality of magnetic resonance signals” in line 5 of the claim should be “the plurality of magnetic resonance signals”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “an image domain” of the claim should be “the image domain”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “an inhomogeneous magnetic field” of the claim should be “the inhomogeneous magnetic field”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “an inhomogeneous magnetic field” of the claim should be “the inhomogeneous magnetic field”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “an inhomogeneous magnetic field” of the claim should be “the inhomogeneous magnetic field”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “an inhomogeneous magnetic field” of the claim should be “the inhomogeneous magnetic field”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) steps of using mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships and formulas) to provide an electronic signal representing the offset frequency. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim limitations do not disclose any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical real-world application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the claims only disclose steps of performing mathematical processes on the data, which can be performed by a human brain.
Examiner suggests adding limitations similar to those found in dependent claims 9 and 21, wherein a second pulse sequence is executed by the MRI system, and the radio frequency antenna is configured to give a response to the second pulse sequence and apply the compensation frequency to configure an electrical signal to compensate for an inhomogeneous magnetic field. Therefore, the compensation frequency is actually used in a second pulse sequence, rather than just being calculated.
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 1-22 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the plurality of pieces of first k space data” is considered indefinite. It is not clear how “the plurality of pieces of first k space data” is different from “first k space data”. Claims 2-12 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “a sum of amplitude variations or energy value variations” is not a standard formula used in the art. Therefore, the examiner suggests adding equations found in the specification [see page 10 of specification] to clear up what a sum of amplitude variations or energy value variations is.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “a sum of amplitude variations or energy value variations” is not a standard formula used in the art. Therefore, the examiner suggests adding equations found in the specification [see page 12-13 of specification] to clear up what a sum of amplitude variations or energy value variations is.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “a sum of amplitude variations or energy value variations” is not a standard formula used in the art. Therefore, the examiner suggests adding equations found in the specification [see page 10 of specification] to clear up what a sum of amplitude variations or energy value variations is.
Regarding claim 9, it is not clear if “an electrical signal” is the same or different from “the electronic signal” in claim 1. Therefore, the claim is considered indefinite.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the plurality of pieces of first k space data” is considered indefinite. It is not clear how “the plurality of pieces of first k space data” is different from “first k space data”. Claims 14-22 are rejected for depending on claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, the same reasons for rejection as claim 2 also apply to claim 14. Claim 14 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, the same reasons for rejection as claim 3 also apply to claim 15. Claim 15 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, the same reasons for rejection as claim 5 also apply to claim 17. Claim 17 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 5.
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, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weingartner (US 2018/0067176).
Regarding claim 1, Weingartner teaches a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pre-scan method, comprising:
executing, by MRI system, a first pulse sequence [Fig. 1, step 102 and ¶0015. See also rest of reference.];
acquiring, by a radio frequency antenna of the MRI system, a plurality of magnetic resonance signals at different offset frequencies at a same location from an object, and recording corresponding first k space data based on a plurality of magnetic resonance signals [Fig. 1, step 102, ¶0015, claim 1. See also rest of reference.];
respectively calculating, by a processor of the MRI system, a variation between the plurality of pieces of first k space data [Fig. 1, step 108. See also rest of reference.];
determining, by the processor and according to the variation, an offset frequency as a compensation frequency for compensating for an inhomogeneous magnetic field [Fig. 1, steps 110-112, wherein B1+ maps are determined. ¶0028, The B1+ maps are used to determining compensated tailored RF pulses. See also rest of reference.]; and
providing an electronic signal representing the offset frequency as an output of the processor of the MRI system [Fig. 1, steps 110-112, wherein B1+ maps are determined. ¶0028, The B1+ maps are used to determining compensated tailored RF pulses. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 9, Weingartner further teaches wherein a second pulse sequence is executed by the MRI system, and the radio frequency antenna is configured to give a response to the second pulse sequence and apply the compensation frequency to configure an electrical signal to compensate for an inhomogeneous magnetic field [Fig. 1, steps 110-112, wherein B1+ maps are determined. ¶0028, The B1+ maps are used to determining compensated tailored RF pulses in further pulse sequences in subsequent imaging scans. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Weingartner further teaches a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system configured to implement the magnetic resonance imaging pre-scan method according to Claim 1 [Fig. 3. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 12, Weingartner further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with an executable program stored thereon, that when executed, instructs a processor to perform the method of claim 1 [Fig. 3 and ¶0035. 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.
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 2-4 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Weingartner, in view of Levy (US 2017/0358095).
Regarding claim 2, Weingartner teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Weingartner further teaches wherein calculating the variation comprises respectively calculating variations at a plurality of k space locations between one piece of first k space data and the first k space data obtained at adjacent offset frequencies [Fig. 1, step 108. See also rest of reference.].
However, Weingartner is silent in teaching a sum of amplitude variations or energy value variations.
Levy, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein calculating the variation comprises respectively calculating a sum of amplitude variations or energy value variations at a plurality of k space locations between one piece of first k space data and the first k space data [¶0054. 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 Weingartner and Levy because both references are in the field of MRI and because Levy teaches deviations/comparisons can be determined using known statistical values such as cross-correlation coefficients, the sum of squared intensity differences, mutual information (as the term is used in probability and information theory), ratio-image uniformity (i.e., the normalized standard deviation of the ratio of corresponding pixel values), the mean squared error, the sum of absolute differences, the sum of squared errors, the sum of absolute transformed differences (which uses a Hadamard or other frequency transform of the differences between corresponding pixels in the two images), or complex cross-correlation (for complex images, such as MRI images), and other techniques familiar [Levy - ¶0054].
Regarding claim 3, Weingartner teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Weingartner further teaches wherein calculating the variation comprises respectively calculating variations at a plurality of k space locations between one piece of first k space data and the first k space data obtained at adjacent offset frequencies [Fig. 1, step 108. See also rest of reference.].
However, Weingartner is silent in teaching wherein respectively calculating the variation between the plurality of pieces of first k space data comprises: reconstructing corresponding image data based on the plurality of pieces of first k space data; and calculating a variation between a plurality of pieces of image data in an image domain, wherein the calculating the variation includes respectively calculating a sum of amplitude variations or energy value variations in a plurality of voxels or pixels between one piece of image data and the image data.
Levy, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches respectively calculating the variation between the plurality of pieces of first k space data comprises: reconstructing corresponding image data based on the plurality of pieces of first k space data [¶0054. See also rest of reference.]; and calculating a variation between a plurality of pieces of image data in an image domain, wherein the calculating the variation includes respectively calculating a sum of amplitude variations or energy value variations in a plurality of voxels or pixels between one piece of image data and the image data [¶0054. 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 Weingartner and Levy because both references are in the field of MRI and because Levy teaches deviations/comparisons can be determined using known statistical values such as cross-correlation coefficients, the sum of squared intensity differences, mutual information (as the term is used in probability and information theory), ratio-image uniformity (i.e., the normalized standard deviation of the ratio of corresponding pixel values), the mean squared error, the sum of absolute differences, the sum of squared errors, the sum of absolute transformed differences (which uses a Hadamard or other frequency transform of the differences between corresponding pixels in the two images), or complex cross-correlation (for complex images, such as MRI images), and other techniques familiar [Levy - ¶0054].
Regarding claim 4, Weingartner and Levy teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
However, Weingartner is silent in teaching wherein the method further comprises, after a plurality of pieces of image data are obtained, respectively selecting regions of interest are selected for the plurality of pieces of image data to calculate a variation in an image domain between the plurality of regions of interest
Levy, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches respectively wherein the method further comprises, after a plurality of pieces of image data are obtained, respectively selecting regions of interest are selected for the plurality of pieces of image data to calculate a variation in an image domain between the plurality of regions of interest [¶0054. 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 Weingartner and Levy because both references are in the field of MRI and because Levy teaches deviations/comparisons can be determined using known statistical values such as cross-correlation coefficients, the sum of squared intensity differences, mutual information (as the term is used in probability and information theory), ratio-image uniformity (i.e., the normalized standard deviation of the ratio of corresponding pixel values), the mean squared error, the sum of absolute differences, the sum of squared errors, the sum of absolute transformed differences (which uses a Hadamard or other frequency transform of the differences between corresponding pixels in the two images), or complex cross-correlation (for complex images, such as MRI images), and other techniques familiar [Levy - ¶0054].
Regarding claim 14, the same reasons for rejection as claim 2 also apply to claim 14. Claim 14 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, the same reasons for rejection as claim 3 also apply to claim 15. Claim 15 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, the same reasons for rejection as claim 4 also apply to claim 16. Claim 16 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 4.
Claims 6-8, 10, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Weingartner, in view of Greiser (US 2010/0045291).
Regarding claim 6, Weingartner teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Weingartner is silent in teaching wherein the first pulse sequence is structured as an offset frequency with a frequency step such that the radio frequency antenna is configured to receive the MR signals in sequence.
Greiser, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the first pulse sequence is structured as an offset frequency with a frequency step such that the radio frequency antenna is configured to receive the MR signals in sequence [¶0008, 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 Weingartner and Greiser because both references are in the field of off-resonance in MRI and because Greiser teaches it is known in the art use frequency steps to determine and combat off-resonance in MRI [Greiser - ¶0008, see also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Weingartner teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Weingartner further teaches a plurality of variations [Fig. 1, step 108. See also rest of reference.].
Weingartner is silent in teaching wherein determining, the offset frequency comprises: comparing magnitudes of data to determine a minimum variation, and selecting the offset frequency corresponding to the minimum variation as the compensation frequency for compensating for an inhomogeneous magnetic field.
Greiser, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein determining, the offset frequency comprises: comparing magnitudes of data to determine a minimum variation, and selecting the offset frequency corresponding to the minimum variation as the compensation frequency for compensating for an inhomogeneous magnetic field [¶0008, wherein the offset frequency with a minimum variation (best image quality) is selected as the offset frequency. 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 Weingartner and Greiser because both references are in the field of off-resonance in MRI and because Greiser teaches it is known in the art to use the offset frequency associated with the best image quality image which can then be used in the following TrueFISP measurement in which the diagnostic image data are then acquired with an advantageous artifact response [Greiser - ¶0008, see also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 8, Weingartner teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Weingartner is silent in teaching wherein the first pulse sequence comprises a balanced Steady State Free Precession (SSFP) pulse sequence or the first pulse sequence comprises a true fast imaging steady state precession pulse sequence.
Greiser, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the first pulse sequence comprises a balanced Steady State Free Precession (SSFP) pulse sequence or the first pulse sequence comprises a true fast imaging steady state precession pulse sequence [¶0008, see TrueFISP. 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 Weingartner and Greiser because both references are in the field of off-resonance in MRI and because Greiser teaches it is known in the art to use the offset frequency associated with the best image quality image which can then be used in the following TrueFISP measurement in which the diagnostic image data are then acquired with an advantageous artifact response [Greiser - ¶0008, see also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, Weingartner teaches the limitations of claim 9, which this claim depends from.
Weingartner is silent in teaching wherein the second pulse sequence comprises a balanced Steady State Free Precession (SSFP) pulse sequence or a true fast imaging steady state precession pulse sequence.
Greiser, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the second pulse sequence comprises a balanced Steady State Free Precession (SSFP) pulse sequence or a true fast imaging steady state precession pulse sequence [¶0008, see TrueFISP. 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 Weingartner and Greiser because both references are in the field of off-resonance in MRI and because Greiser teaches it is known in the art to use the offset frequency associated with the best image quality image which can then be used in the following TrueFISP measurement in which the diagnostic image data are then acquired with an advantageous artifact response [Greiser - ¶0008, see also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 18, the same reasons for rejection as claim 7 also apply to claim 18. Claim 18 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, the same reasons for rejection as claim 8 also apply to claim 19. Claim 19 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, the same reasons for rejection as claim 6 also apply to claim 20. Claim 20 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 6.
Regarding claim 21, Weingartner and Greiser teach the limitations of claim 20, which this claim depends from.
Weingartner further teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate a second pulse sequence such that the radio frequency antenna gives a response to the second pulse sequence and applies the selected compensation frequency to configure an electrical signal to compensate for an inhomogeneous magnetic field [Fig. 1, steps 110-112, wherein B1+ maps are determined. ¶0028, The B1+ maps are used to determining compensated tailored RF pulses in further pulse sequences in subsequent imaging scans. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 22, the same reasons for rejection as claim 10 also apply to claim 22. Claim 22 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, the closest prior art is considered previously cited Weingartner and Levy. However, Weingartner and Levy are both silent in teaching wherein respectively calculating the variation for the plurality of pieces of first k space data comprises: reconstructing the corresponding image data based on the plurality of pieces of first k space data; after obtaining a plurality of pieces of image data, selecting regions of interest for the plurality of pieces of image data respectively; and transforming the plurality of regions of interest into k spaces to obtain a plurality of pieces of second k space data, and respectively calculating a variation of the plurality of pieces of second k space data in the k spaces, wherein calculating the variation includes respectively calculating a sum of amplitude variations or energy value variations at a plurality of k space locations between one piece of second k space data and the second k space data obtained at adjacent offset frequencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2023/0122915 also teaches a method of determining off-resonance using a neural network [¶0012].
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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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 2896