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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 10/29/2025, with respect to prior 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 with respect to USC 102 rejections of claims 1 and newly added claim 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant ague that Aldefeld does not teach “generating an actual selection gradient pulse shape by applying a current to field modulation transfer function (CGMTF) to sampled electrical current” and “compensating for deviation of the actual selection gradient pulse shape from an input selection gradient pulse shape by adjusting radio frequency pulses emitted simultaneously with the selection gradient pulses”
The examiner respectfully disagrees, Aledfeld precisely teach the relationship between measured current input and resulting magnetic gradient field output col. 3 line 65- col. 4 line 8, then processes these sampled currents through convolution with the previously measured pulse responses of the gradient coil system col. 4 lines 1-15. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Aldefeld’s stored pulse response/impulse response function constitutes a current to field modulation transfer function, because it characterizes how input current is translated into the actual gradient field over time, the relationship in transfer function described in col. 6 line 65-col. 7 line 7. Teaching applying a transfer function to sampled current in order to generate the actual gradient field variation which meets the claimed CGMTF limitation.
Aldefeld further teaches compensating deviations by adjusting RF pulse shapes spatially selective excitation, generating the actual selection gradient pulse shape “enables the magnetic resonance examination system to compensate for the deviation, by adjusting radio frequency pulses emitted simultaneously with the selection gradient pulses col. 4 lines 8-15. Spatially selective RF pulses are, by definition in MRI physics, emitted concurrently with selection gradients (e.g. slice select gradient) to achieve selective excitation. Therefore, Aldefeld adjustment of the RF pulse envelop based on the actual measured gradient field necessarily occurs during the application of selection gradient pulses.
Further argues relating to “compensating deviation” from an input selection gradient pulse shape. Examiner respectfully states that Aldefeld’s entire purpose if to account for nonideal gradient coil behavior (e.g. delays, eddy’s current) by determining the true temporal variation of the gradient field from measured current and calibrated coil response functions. This determination of the actual gradient field necessarily reflects deviations from the nominal/input/gradient waveform produced by the waveform generator, and Aldefeld explicitly use this actual field information to adjust RF pulses envelops for spatially selective pulses. Thus, Aldefeld teaches compensating for gradient deviations by modifying RF pulse shapes based on the actual gradient field evolution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Aldefeld (U.S. Patent 6377043).
Regarding claim 1, Aldefeld discloses a gradient system for a magnetic resonance examination system (100) for generating a gradient magnetic field within an imaging zone
at least one gradient coil
of the envelope of the RF pulse or the magnetic gradient fields for spatially selective RF pulses”), and
wherein the gradient system
a magnetic resonance examination system unit 26 outputs a result in the form of the temporal variation of the magnetic fields produced by the gradient coils, but at least the gradient fields G(t), or the K-space values derived therefrom in known manner by integration, for the x, the y and the z direction, respectively. The values thus determined are applied to the reconstruction unit 24 in order to enhance the reconstruction and/or to the arithmetic unit 5 which derives therefrom the temporal variation of the envelope of the RF pulse or the magnetic gradient fields for spatially selective RF pulses” col. 4 lines 1-12, adjusting the shape of RF pulses),
wherein the CGMTF describes how the gradient coil
PNG
media_image1.png
554
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Aldefeld further discloses a magnetic resonance imaging system
Regarding claims 14, 16, Aldefeld further discloses wherein the selection gradient field is a spatial read-encoding gradient field and also at least one of: a crusher gradient field and/or a slice selection gradient field and/or a slice refocusing gradient field and/or a gradient field spatially selective in one or multiple dimensions (col. 4 lines 8-13 “he values thus determined are applied to the reconstruction unit 24 in order to enhance the reconstruction and/or to the arithmetic unit 5 which derives therefrom the temporal variation of the envelope of the RF pulse or the magnetic gradient fields for spatially selective RF pulses”).
Regarding claim 15, the structure recited is intrinsic to the apparatus recited in claim 1, as disclosed by Aldefeld (U.S. Patent 6377043) as the recited structure will be used during the normal operation, as discussed above with regard to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
Claims 4-6 and 10-11, 13, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldefeld (U.S. Patent 6377043) in view of Trzasko (U.S. Publication 20170038452).
Aldefeld teach the instant invention above:
Regarding claim 4, the method recited is intrinsic to the apparatus recited in claim 1, as disclosed by Aldefeld (U.S. Patent 6377043) as the recited method steps will be performed during the normal operation of the apparatus, as discussed above with regard to claim 1. Aldefeld disclose image reconstruction process (col. 3 lines 60-67 and col. 4 lines 1-19) however does not explicitly discloses predicting
However, Trzasko teaching a system and method for simultaneously reconstructing magnetic resonance images and correcting those imaged for gradient nonlinearity effects teaches predicting
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the estimation process of Trzasko in Aldefeld to gain the advantage of improved scan results leading to improved reconstruction ([Trzasko] [col. 2 line 38-39]).
Regarding claim 5, Aldefeld as modified further teaches wherein the step of obtaining an actual selection gradient pulse shape
Regarding claims 6, 17, Aldefeld as modified further teaches wherein the current to field modulation transfer function (CGMTF) is pre-recorded before applying the function to sampled electrical current for obtaining the actual selection gradient pulse shape
Regarding claim 10, Aldefeld as modified further teaches wherein the step of sampling the electrical current supplied to the gradient coilby the-5-gradient coil amplifiervariation of the gradient field reflecting the actual modulation col. 3 lines 60-67 and col. 4 lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 11, Aldefeld as modified further teaches wherein the step of correcting for gradient distortions of the actual selection gradient pulse shape
Regarding claim 13, Aldefeld as modified further teaches a computer program product comprising instructions, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to control a magnetic resonance imaging system .
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldefeld (U.S. Patent 6377043), Trzasko (U.S. Publication 20170038452) as applied to the rejection of claim 4 above and further in view of Styner (U.S. Publication 20190148021).
Aldefeld as modified by Trzasko does teach the invention above;
Regarding claim 7, Aldefeld as modified by Trzasko does the step of predicting gradient distortions of the actual selection gradient pulse shape
However, Styner teaching relates to medical imaging analysis teaches trained neural network techniques to various functions, such as obtaining magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data, analyzing brain characteristics using the MRI data, generating brain related measurements, and/or predicting a neurobehavioral disorder diagnosis or an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis using deep learning or neural network techniques ([0174]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Styner in Aldefeld as modified by Trzasko to gain the advantage of improving the technological field of early condition detection [Styner [0201]].
Regarding claim 8, Aldefeld as modified further teaches wherein the step of predicting gradient distortions of the actual selection gradient pulse shape
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Styner in Aldefeld as modified by Trzasko to gain the advantage of improving the technological field of early condition detection [Styner [0201]].
Regarding claim 9, Aldefeld as modified further teaches wherein the parameters values are selected from the following list: max. gradient strength and/or slew rate and/or strength and/or variation when using variable-rate selective excitation, VERSE (“The values thus determined are applied to the reconstruction unit 24 in order to enhance the reconstruction and/or to the arithmetic unit 5 which derives therefrom the temporal variation of the envelope of the RF pulse or the magnetic gradient fields for spatially selective RF pulses” col. 4 lines 8-13).
Conclusion
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAQI R NASIR whose telephone number is (571)270-1425. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/TAQI R NASIR/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858