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 filed 03/05/2026 regarding the dates of prior art Gras have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that prior art Gras (US 2024/0183918) does not qualify as prior art because the publication date is after the effective filing date of the current application. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Gras ‘918 was rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(2) which uses the effective filing date of Gras, not the publication date. Gras ‘918 has an effective filing date of 03/17/2021 (with foreign priority). Therefore, Gras ‘918 does qualify as prior art.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the RF pulse waveform” should be amended to “the non-parametric RF pulse waveform”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 17 and 20-23 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the RF excitation pulse” should be amended to “the non-parametric RF excitation pulse”. 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 17, 20-23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhai (US 2009/0102483).
Regarding claim 17, Zhai teaches a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system, the system comprising:
a magnetic system configured to produce a main magnetic (B0) field across at least a portion of a subject to be imaged with the MRI system [¶0026, see static magnetic field. See also rest of reference.];
a radiofrequency (RF) system configured to transmit and receive a radiofrequency (B1+) field across at least a target region in the portion of the subject [See B1+ field. See also rest of reference.];
a gradient system configured to spatially encode the B1+ field using a gradient waveform [¶0026, see gradient magnetic field. See also rest of reference.]; and
a control system configured to control the RF system to generate a non-parametric RF excitation pulse using the RF system and having a shape selected by penalizing deviation of a flip-angle of the RF excitation pulse from a target flip-angle distribution to achieve a target magnetization profile in the target region [¶0044, wherein the B1 pulse shape is dynamically and iteratively adjusted using feedback until a desired spatial tip angle distribution is achieved. Therefore, the shape of the pulse is non-parametric. See also ¶0034-0043 which also teaches the functions used to determine the desired tip angle distribution. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 20, Zhai further teaches wherein the RF excitation pulse and the gradient waveform are configured to control at least one of a specific absorption rate (SAR) or a deviation from the target magnetization profile over a target region in the portion of the subject [¶0009, ¶0031, ¶0044. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 21, Zhai further teaches wherein the RF excitation pulse is free of sinc and rect pulses [¶0044, wherein the B1 pulse shape is dynamically and iteratively adjusted using feedback until a desired spatial tip angle distribution is achieved. Therefore, the shape is dynamic and not a standard shape. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 22, Zhai further teaches wherein the RF system comprises a single-channel RF transmit coil configured to generate the RF excitation pulse [Fig. 8, wherein each coil (301-303) is shown to have a single channel.].
Regarding claim 23, Zhai further teaches wherein the RF system comprises a muti-channel RF transmit coil configured to generate the RF excitation pulse using parallel transmit [¶0029-0037. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 27, Zhai further teaches wherein the target volume is a volume of interest, and wherein the MRI system is configured for 3D MRI [¶0031, see slab.].
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 1-5, 7-10, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boulant (US 2018/0252788), in view of previously cited Zhai.
Regarding claim 1, Boulant teaches a method for performing a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) process, the method comprising:
(a) determining a target excitation region for an imaging process of a subject located within the MRI system [See head of subjects is imaged. ¶0027 at least. See also rest of reference.];
(b) determining a target magnetization profile for the imaging process [See target distribution of flip angles. ¶0019 at least. See also rest of reference.];
(c) accessing field map data with a computer system, wherein the field map data indicate a B0 field map measured by the MRI system and a B1+ field map measured for a radiofrequency (RF) transmit coil of the MRI system [See B0 and B1 maps. Fig. 2, step a at least. See also rest of reference.];
(d) with the computer system, designing an RF pulse waveform with shape selected using an objective function having at least one constraint, and wherein the objective function is configured to control at least one of a deviation from the target magnetization profile within the target excitation region or an RF power requirement level based on the field map data [See universal pulses in at least ¶0045. ¶0071-0072, wherein the objective function has constraints. The objective function uses a cost function to minimize a difference between the flip angle distribution and target flip angle distribution. See also rest of reference.];
(e) communicating the RF pulse waveform for use with the MRI system to perform an imaging process of the subject [¶0079, once designed, the RF pulses are executed by the MRI system. See also Fig. 1 and rest of reference.].
However, Boulant is silent in teaching a non-parametric RF pulse waveform.
Zhai, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches a non-parametric RF pulse waveform [¶0044, wherein the B1 pulse shape is dynamically and iteratively adjusted using feedback until a desired spatial tip angle distribution is achieved. Therefore, the shape of the pulse is non-parametric. See also ¶0034-0043 which also teaches the functions used to determine the desired tip angle distribution. 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 Boulant and Zhai because both references are in the field of designing RF pulses for MRI and because Zhai teaches it is known in the art to use non-parametric RF pulses as optimized RF pulses for MRI [Zhai - ¶0044, wherein the B1 pulse shape is dynamically and iteratively adjusted using feedback until a desired spatial tip angle distribution is achieved. Therefore, the shape of the pulse is non-parametric. See also ¶0034-0043 which also teaches the functions used to determine the desired tip angle distribution. See also rest of reference.]. Therefore, it would have also been obvious to try using the optimization strategy disclosed by Zhai to optimize the RF pulses because Zhai teaches the non-parametric approach can be used to improve the flip angle homogeneity, which is an object of Boulant.
Regarding claim 2, Boulant and Zhai teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant is silent in teaching wherein the RF pulse waveform is free of sinc and rect pulses.
Zhai further teaches wherein the RF pulse waveform is free of sinc and rect pulses [¶0044, wherein the B1 pulse shape is dynamically and iteratively adjusted using feedback until a desired spatial tip angle distribution is achieved. Therefore, the shape is dynamic and not a standard shape. 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 Boulant and Zhai because both references are in the field of designing RF pulses for MRI and because Zhai teaches it is known in the art to use non-parametric RF pulses as optimized RF pulses for MRI [Zhai - ¶0044, wherein the B1 pulse shape is dynamically and iteratively adjusted using feedback until a desired spatial tip angle distribution is achieved. Therefore, the shape of the pulse is non-parametric. See also ¶0034-0043 which also teaches the functions used to determine the desired tip angle distribution. See also rest of reference.]. Therefore, it would have also been obvious to try using the optimization strategy disclosed by Zhai to optimize the RF pulses because Zhai teaches the non-parametric approach can be used to improve the flip angle homogeneity, which is an object of Boulant.
Regarding claim 3, Boulant and Zhai teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant and Zhai further teach wherein the MRI system comprises a single-channel RF transmit coil configured to generate the RF excitation pulse [Boulant - ¶0012. Zhai - Fig. 8, wherein each coil (301-303) is shown to have a single channel.. See also rest of references.].
Regarding claim 4, Boulant and Zhai teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant and Zhai further teach wherein the MRI system comprises a multi-channel RF transmit coils configured for parallel transmit [Boulant - ¶0044, wherein the plurality of coil elements form an RF coil. Therefore, a signal RF coil (with multiple elements) is used. Zhai - ¶0029-0037. See also rest of references.].
Regarding claim 5, Boulant and Zhai teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant and Zhai further teaches further comprising applying the RF pulse waveform by an RF system of the MRI system, applying a gradient waveform by a gradient system of the MRI system, and acquiring MRI data from a subject to perform the imaging process [Boulant - See gradient waveform, at least in ¶0010. Zhai - ¶0009, ¶0031, ¶0044. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Boulant and Zhai teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant further teaches wherein the target excitation region is a slice profile, and wherein the MRI system is configured for 2D imaging [¶0079 and Fig. 6, wherein slices are excited. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 8, Boulant and Zhai teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant further teaches wherein the target excitation region is a 3D volume of interest, and wherein the MRI system is configured for 3D imaging [See head of subjects is imaged. ¶0027 at least. ¶0053 also discloses a volume of interest which includes voxels, indicating three dimensions. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 9, Boulant and Zhai teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant and Zhai further teach wherein the target magnetization profile is defined as a homogeneous flip angle within the target excitation volume [Boulant - ¶0051, wherein excitation homogeneity is optimized. ¶0071-0072, wherein the objective function has constraints. The objective function uses a cost function to minimize a difference between the flip angle distribution and target flip angle distribution. Zhai – See where non-uniformity is reduced. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, Boulant and Zhai teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant and Zhai further teach wherein the deviation from the target magnetization profile represents B1+ inhomogeneity [Boulant - See ¶0044, for non-homogeneous RF field B1. ¶0051, wherein excitation homogeneity is optimized. ¶0071-0072, wherein the objective function has constraints. The objective function uses a cost function to minimize a difference between the flip angle distribution and target flip angle distribution. Zhai – See B1+. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 14, Boulant and Zhai teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant further teaches wherein the B0 field map comprises a B0 field map measured for a single subject and the B1+ field map comprises a B1+ field map measured for the single subject [Fig. 2, where a B0 and B1 map is measured for subject 1 (single subject). There are also other subjects. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 15, Boulant and Zhai teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant further teaches wherein the B0 field map comprises a plurality of B0 field maps measured for a plurality of subjects and the B1+ field map comprises a plurality of B1+ field maps measured for a plurality of subjects [Fig. 2, where a B0 and B1 map is measured for multiple subjects. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 16, Boulant and Zhai teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant further teaches wherein the objective function is further configured to control a specific absorption rate (SAR) [See SAR constraints. See also rest of reference.].
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Boulant, in view of previously cited Zhai, in and further view Gras (US 2021/0173031).
Regarding claim 6, Boulant and Zhai teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant and Zhai is silent in teaching wherein the at least one constraint comprises at least one of a slew rate of a gradient waveform or an acceleration of the gradient waveform.
Gras, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the at least one constraint comprises at least one of a slew rate of a gradient waveform or an acceleration of the gradient waveform [¶0074, wherein gradient slew rate constraints can be added to the optimization. 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 Boulant and Zhai with the teachings of Gras because all references are in the field of designing parallel transmission RF pulses for MRI and because Gras teaches it is known in the art to use gradient slew rate constraints for designing and optimizing pulses for MRI [Gras - ¶0074. See also rest of reference.], where optimizing pulses for MRI is a goal of Boulant and Zhai.
Regarding claim 13, Boulant and Zhai teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant and Zhai further teach further comprising generating at least one of a gradient waveform or a shim waveform [See gradient waveform. See also rest of reference.].
Boulant and Zhai are silent in teaching wherein the objective function is further constrained by at least one of a slew rate of a gradient waveform, an acceleration of the gradient waveform, a slew rate of the shim waveform, or an acceleration of the shim waveform.
Gras, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches further comprising generating at least one of a gradient waveform or a shim waveform, and wherein the objective function is further constrained by at least one of a slew rate of a gradient waveform, an acceleration of the gradient waveform, a slew rate of the shim waveform, or an acceleration of the shim waveform [¶0074, wherein gradient slew rate constraints can be added to the optimization. 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 Boulant and Zhai with the teachings of Gras because all references are in the field of designing parallel transmission RF pulses for MRI and because Gras teaches it is known in the art to use gradient slew rate constraints for designing and optimizing pulses for MRI [Gras - ¶0074. See also rest of reference.], where optimizing pulses for MRI is a goal of Boulant and Zhai.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Boulant, in view of previously cited Zhai, and in further view of Schneider (US 2017/0315204).
Regarding claim 11, Boulant and Zhai teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant further teaches wherein the target magnetization profile is defined inside the target excitation region [See head/brain is imaged. See universal pulses in at least ¶0045. ¶0071-0072, wherein the objective function has constraints. The objective function uses a cost function to minimize a difference between the flip angle distribution and target flip angle distribution. See also rest of reference.].
However, Boulant and Zhai are silent in teaching wherein the target magnetization profile is defined outside the target excitation region and designing the RF pulse waveform further includes control a deviation from the target magnetization profile outside the target excitation region.
Schneider, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the target magnetization profile is defined inside the target excitation region and outside the target excitation region and designing the RF pulse waveform further includes control a deviation from the target magnetization profile outside the target excitation region [Fig. 3 and ¶0033. Fig. 4. 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 Boulant and Zhai with the teachings of Schneider because all references are in the field of designing/optimizing RF pulses for MRI and because Schneider teaches it is known in the art that pulse profiles can depend on parameters of the field of view [Schneider - ¶0033. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 12, Boulant, Zhai, and Schneider teach the limitations of claim 11, which this claim depends from.
Zhai and Schneider teach wherein the target magnetization profile is defined as a 0° flip angle outside the target excitation region [Zhai – See Figs. 3 and 5-6, wherein the flip angle is 0 outside the phantom. Schneider - Fig. 3 and ¶0033. Fig. 4. 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 Boulant and Zhai with the teachings of Schneider because all references are in the field of designing/optimizing RF pulses for MRI and because Schneider teaches it is known in the art that pulse profiles can depend on parameters of the field of view [Schneider - ¶0033. See also rest of reference.].
Claims 18-19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Zhai, in view of Gras (US 2021/0173031).
Regarding claim 18, Zhai teaches the limitations of claim 17, which this claim depends from.
Zhai further teaches constraining the shape of the excitation pulse [¶0044, wherein the B1 pulse shape is dynamically and iteratively adjusted using feedback until a desired spatial tip angle distribution is achieved.].
Zhai is silent in teaching wherein the excitation pulse is constrained by the gradient waveform.
Gras, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the excitation pulse is constrained by the gradient waveform [¶0074, wherein gradient slew rate constraints can be added to the optimization. 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 Zhai and Gras because both references are in the field of designing parallel transmission RF pulses for MRI and because Gras teaches it is known in the art to use gradient slew rate constraints for designing and optimizing pulses for MRI [Gras - ¶0074. See also rest of reference.], where optimizing pulses for MRI is a goal of Zhai.
Regarding claim 19, Zhai and Gras teach the limitations of claim 18, which this claim depends from.
Zhai further teaches constraining the shape of the excitation pulse [¶0044, wherein the B1 pulse shape is dynamically and iteratively adjusted using feedback until a desired spatial tip angle distribution is achieved.].
Zhai is silent in teaching wherein constraining the excitation pulse by the gradient waveform includes constraining the excitation pulse based on at least one of a slew rate or an acceleration of the gradient waveform.
Gras, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein constraining the excitation pulse by the gradient waveform includes constraining the excitation pulse based on at least one of a slew rate or an acceleration of the gradient waveform [¶0074, wherein gradient slew rate constraints can be added to the optimization. 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 Zhai and Gras because both references are in the field of designing parallel transmission RF pulses for MRI and because Gras teaches it is known in the art to use gradient slew rate constraints for designing and optimizing pulses for MRI [Gras - ¶0074. See also rest of reference.], where optimizing pulses for MRI is a goal of Zhai.
Regarding claim 25, Zhai teaches the limitations of claim 17, which this claim depends from.
Zhai is silent in teaching wherein the optimization is constrained by at least one of a slew rate of the gradient waveform or an acceleration of the gradient waveform.
Gras, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the optimization is constrained by at least one of a slew rate of the gradient waveform or an acceleration of the gradient waveform [¶0074, wherein gradient slew rate constraints can be added to the optimization. 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 Zhai and Gras because both references are in the field of designing parallel transmission RF pulses for MRI and because Gras teaches it is known in the art to use gradient slew rate constraints for designing and optimizing pulses for MRI [Gras - ¶0074. See also rest of reference.], where optimizing pulses for MRI is a goal of Zhai.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Zhai, in view of previously cited Schneider.
Regarding claim 24, Zhai teaches the limitations of claim 17, which this claim depends from.
Zhai further teaches wherein the target magnetization profile is defined inside the target excitation region [Fig. 3 and 5-6. See also rest of reference.].
However, Zhai is silent in teaching wherein the target magnetization profile is defined outside of the target volume and the optimization is further configured to control a deviation from the target magnetization profile outside of the target volume.
Schneider, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the target magnetization profile is defined inside and outside of the target volume and the optimization is further configured to control a deviation from the target magnetization profile outside of the target volume [Fig. 3 and ¶0033. Fig. 4. 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 Zhai and Schneider because both references are in the field of designing/optimizing RF pulses for MRI and because Schneider teaches it is known in the art that pulse profiles can depend on parameters of the field of view [Schneider - ¶0033. See also rest of reference.].
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Zhai, in view of Duyn (WO 2012/138902).
Regarding claim 28, Zhai teaches the limitations of claim 17, which this claim depends from.
However, Zhai is silent in teaching wherein the system further comprises a shim system configured to shape the B0 field, and wherein the control system is further configured to control the shim system to generate a shim waveform to reduce at least one of a power consumption or a deviation from the target magnetization profile.
Duyn, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the system further comprises a shim system configured to shape the B0 field [See B0 shims. See also rest of reference.], and wherein the control system is further configured to control the shim system to generate a shim waveform to reduce at least one of a power consumption or a deviation from the target magnetization profile [Abstract, ¶0034-0035, ¶0039, ¶0047 wherein shims are used to optimize flip angle uniformity. 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 Zhai and Duyn because both references are in the field of designing/optimizing RF pulses for MRI and because Duyn teaches it is known in the art to use B0 shims to optimizing flip angle uniformity [Schneider - ¶0033. See also rest of reference.], where optimizing flip angle uniformity is a goal of Zhai.
Claim 26 and 29-30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Zhai, in view of previously cited Boulant.
Regarding claim 26, Zhai teaches the limitations of claim 17, which this claim depends from.
Zhai is silent in teaching wherein the target volume is a slice profile, and wherein the MRI system is configured for 2D MRI.
Boulant, which is in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the target volume is a slice profile, and wherein the MRI system is configured for 2D MRI. [¶0079 and Fig. 6, wherein slices are excited. 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 Zhai and Boulant because both references are in the field of designing RF pulses for MRI and because Boulant teaches it is known and common in the art to image slices of the patient when performing MRI.
Regarding claim 29, Zhai teaches the limitations of claim 17, which this claim depends from.
Zhai further teaches wherein the control system is further configured to perform an optimization using a B1+ field map that comprises a B1+ field map measured for the subject to design the RF pulse [See B1+ distribution. ¶0044, wherein the B1 distribution is measured to be later optimized to the optimized B1 distribution. See also rest of reference.].
Zhai is silent in teaching wherein the control system is further configured to perform an optimization using a B0 field map that comprises a B0 field map measured for the subject.
Boulant, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the control system is further configured to perform an optimization using a B0 field map that comprises a B0 field map measured for the subject and a B1+ field map that comprises a B1+ field map measured for the subject to design the RF pulse [Fig. 2, where a B0 and B1 map is measured for subject 1 (single subject). There are also other subjects. 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 Zhai and Boulant because both references are in the field of designing RF pulses for MRI and because Boulant teaches it is known in the art to use B0 maps to optimize RF pulses, which is an object of Zhai.
Regarding claim 30, Zhai teaches the limitations of claim 17, which this claim depends from.
Zhai further teaches wherein the control system is further configured to perform an optimization using a B1+ field map [See B1+ distribution. ¶0044, wherein the B1 distribution is measured to be later optimized to the optimized B1 distribution. See also rest of reference.].
Gras is silent in teaching wherein the control system is further configured to perform an optimization using a B0 field map that comprises a plurality of B0 field maps measured for a plurality of subjects and a B1+ field map that comprises a plurality of B1+ field maps measured for a plurality of subjects.
Boulant further teaches wherein the control system is further configured to perform an optimization using a B0 field map that comprises a plurality of B0 field maps measured for a plurality of subjects and a B1+ field map that comprises a plurality of B1+ field maps measured for a plurality of subjects [Fig. 2, where a B0 and B1 map is measured for multiple subjects. 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 Zhai and Boulant because both references are in the field of designing RF pulses for MRI and because Boulant teaches it is known in the art to use B0 maps to optimize RF pulses, which is an object of Zhai.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0341084 teaches the present disclosure provides a method of designing RF pulses without pre-determined pulse shapes.
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