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 arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 02/04/2026, with respect to the previous 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 02/04/2026, with respect to the previous 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Schulte teaches generating a B1 field map to be used for B1 shimming based on the one dimensional spatial encoding signal acquired along the linear projection. However, Schulte does not disclose or suggest "determining a set of B1 shimming parameters based on the acquired B1 projection data," as recited in Claim 1.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Schulte teaches “acquiring B1 projection data, using the magnetic resonance imaging system, along the determined orientation of the projection” [¶0034-¶0036, “The RF signal receiver 206 then acquires a one dimensional spatially encoded signal along the linear projection. The RF signal receiver 206 may perform a frequency readout in the direction of the linear projection. The complex phase of the received signal is calculated, thus measuring the phase shift of the excited atoms, induced by the one or more off-resonance RF pulses. The phase shift of the excited atoms is representative of the B1 field strength.” See Fig. 3 and corresponding description. See also rest of reference.].
Next, Schulte teaches determining a set of B1 shimming parameters based on the acquired B1 projection data [¶0038-0040 “The field mapping module 208 generates a B1 field map based on the one dimensional spatial encoding signal acquired along the linear projection.” “the B1 field strength is measured along a preset number of linear projections to generate the B1 field map to be used for shimming.” See also rest of reference.].
Therefore, the linear projections [B1 projections] are used to determine the B1 field map, which is then used to determine a set of B1 shimming parameters. Therefore, it is believed that Schulte teaches the argued limitations of claim 1.
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, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schulte (US 2013/0134972).
Regarding claim 1, Schulte teaches a method for performing patient-specific B1 field shimming in a magnetic resonance imaging system, comprising:
obtaining patient information of a patient to be imaged by the magnetic resonance imaging system [¶0029, see slice planes. See also rest of reference.];
determining an orientation of a projection based on the obtained patient information [¶0029-0031, see selecting angular orientation of projections. See also Fig. 4-6. See also rest of reference.];
acquiring B1 projection data, using the magnetic resonance imaging system, along the determined orientation of the projection [¶0034-¶0036, “The RF signal receiver 206 then acquires a one dimensional spatially encoded signal along the linear projection. The RF signal receiver 206 may perform a frequency readout in the direction of the linear projection. The complex phase of the received signal is calculated, thus measuring the phase shift of the excited atoms, induced by the one or more off-resonance RF pulses. The phase shift of the excited atoms is representative of the B1 field strength.” See Fig. 3 and corresponding description. See also rest of reference.]; and
determining a set of B1 shimming parameters based on the acquired B1 projection data [¶0038-0040 “The field mapping module 208 generates a B1 field map based on the one dimensional spatial encoding signal acquired along the linear projection.” “the B1 field strength is measured along a preset number of linear projections to generate the B1 field map to be used for shimming.” See also rest of reference.];
controlling the magnetic resonance imaging system based on the determined set of B1 shimming parameters [¶0039-0040, ¶0056, claim 8. See also rest of reference.]: and
acquiring and displaying a magnetic resonance image generated by the magnetic resonance imaging system [¶0025, ¶0056, ¶0060, and Fig. 1, wherein images are acquired using the B1 maps/shimming. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 16, Schulte further teaches wherein the set of B1 shimming parameters includes an RF amplitude modulation and an RF phase modulation to be applied to RF transmit channels of an RF transmitter of the magnetic resonance imaging system [See B1 shimming, which would include amplitude and phase modulation. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 17, Schulte further teaches wherein the acquiring step further comprises acquiring the projection data using a Bloch-Siegert Shift method, a Double Angle method, an Actual Flip Angle method, a Dual Refocusing Echo Acquisition Mode method, a Phase Sensitive method, or a Saturation Recovery method [¶0052. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 18, Schulte further teaches wherein the acquiring step further comprises performing 2D spatial selection to select a portion within a volume of the patient along the determined orientation of the projection [See slice. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 20, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to claim 20. Claim 20 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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Schulte, in view of Herza (US 2016/0169999).
Regarding claim 19, Schulte teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
However, Schulte is silent in teaching wherein the acquiring step further comprises performing more than one readout per excitation to acquire more than one projection per repetition time.
Herza, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the acquiring step further comprises performing more than one readout per excitation to acquire more than one projection per repetition time [¶0058 and ¶0067. 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 Schulte and Herza because both references are in the field of acquiring projection using MRI and because Herza teaches it is known in the art to acquire multiple projections in a single TR, which is more efficient and faster [Herza - ¶0058 and ¶0067. See also rest of reference.].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the closest prior art is considered Schulte. However, Schulte is silent in teaching wherein the step of determining the orientation further comprises: extracting, from the patient information, a specific imaging anatomy, and obtaining, from a first look-up table, using the extracted imaging anatomy as a key, the orientation of the projection, and the acquiring step further comprises: generating gradient signals based on the obtained orientation of the projection, and applying the generated gradient signals to gradient coil drivers of the magnetic resonance imaging system.
Claims 4-10 are considered above the prior art for depending on claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, the closest prior art is considered Schulte. However, Schulte is silent in teaching wherein the step of determining the set of B1 shimming parameters further comprises: receiving, along the determined orientation of the projection, B1 projection data corresponding to each of a plurality of sets of B1 shimming parameters, respectively; calculating, based on the received B1 projection data, a cost function score corresponding to each of the plurality of sets of B1 shimming parameters, respectively; identifying a particular set of B1 shimming parameters which corresponds to a lowest cost function score; and determining the identified particular set of B1 shimming parameters to be the determined set of B1 shimming parameters.
Claims 12-14 are considered above the prior art for depending on claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, the closest prior art is considered Schulte. However, Schulte is silent in teaching wherein the step of determining the set of B1 shimming parameters further comprises: controlling a set of B1 shimming parameters to switch ON one of individual transmit channels in an RF transmitter of the magnetic resonance imaging system, with other transmit channels switched OFF; receiving particular B1 projection data acquired with different transmit channels switched ON, respectively; analyzing the received particular B1 projection data to evaluate an effect of each of the different transmit channels on a symmetry of a profile of the B1 projection data; calculating a particular set of B1 shimming parameters that maximizes the symmetry of the profile of the B1 projection data; and determining the calculated particular set of B1 shimming parameters to be the determined set of B1 shimming parameters.
Claim 15 is considered above the prior art for depending on claim 14.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights