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 09/26/2026 regarding the previous prior art rejection of the Jones reference have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, applicant argues that Jones fails to disclose processing circuitry configured to determine, based on the obtained information (about a contrast agent containing a plurality of substances with mutually different chemical shifts), a frequency band related to a decrease in a magnetic resonance signal due to the mutually different chemical shifts of the plurality of substances, as recited in amended Claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Jones teaches using iopamidol and discloses the “acidoCEST MRI” protocol measures the two CEST signals produced by the amide protons of iopamidol [see Introduction section]. Jones then teaches acidoCEST protocol was performed at 3.0 to 6.9 ppm, which includes the peaks of iopamidol. Therefore, the examiner does believe that Jones teaches processing circuitry configured to determine, based on the obtained information (about a contrast agent containing a plurality of substances with mutually different chemical shifts), a frequency band related to a decrease in a magnetic resonance signal due to the mutually different chemical shifts of the plurality of substances [Jones – wherein 3.0 to 6.9 ppm is determined based on known information of iopamidol and that the acidoCEST protocol measures the two CEST signals produced by the amide protons of iopamidol.].
Then the applicant further argues that does not disclose determining a frequency band related to a decrease in the magnetic resonance signal due to mutually different chemical shifts of a plurality of substance in a contrast agent.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Jones teaches discloses the “acidoCEST MRI” protocol measures the two CEST signals produced by the amide protons of iopamidol [see Introduction section]. Jones then teaches acidoCEST protocol was performed at 3.0 to 6.9 ppm, which includes the peaks of iopamidol (4.2 ppm and 5.6 ppm). Therefore, the examiner does believe that Jones teaches determining a frequency band related to a decrease in the magnetic resonance signal due to mutually different chemical shifts of a plurality of substance in a contrast agent [Jones – wherein 3.0 to 6.9 ppm is determined based on known information of iopamidol and that the acidoCEST protocol measures the two CEST signals produced by the amide protons of iopamidol.].
The applicant further argues Jones does not teach calculate a difference between a first Z-spectrum generated based on the first magnetic resonance signal group and a second Z-spectrum generated based on the second magnetic resonance signal group and detect, from the calculated difference, a plurality of peaks indicating the decrease in the magnetic resonance signal due to the mutually different chemical shifts of the plurality of substances. Specifically, the applicant argues Jones does not teach detecting a plurality of peaks from the calculated difference between the first Z spectrum and the second Z spectrum.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Jones teaches subtracting the pre and post injection Z spectra, which include the peaks (known 4.2 ppm and 5.6 ppm peaks) in the 3.0 to 6.9 ppm. Jones further teaches determining the pH using the subtracted spectra [See Materials and Methods section. See also In Vivo MRI Acquisition Methods section. This sequence was repeated with a series of 20 saturation frequencies at 3.0 to 6.9 ppm in 0.1 ppm increments. Image Analysis section, see pre-injection and post-injection spectra. See Image Analysis and Results sections where peaks are used to determine pH. See 3.0 to 6.9 ppm, wherein the Introduction section discloses that the “acidoCEST MRI” protocol measures the two CEST signals (known 4.2 ppm and 5.6 ppm peaks) produced by the amide protons of iopamidol which is inside the band 3.0 to 6.9 ppm. See also rest of reference.].
Therefore, the examiner believes Jones teaches the limitations of amended claim 1 and the same reasons apply to claim 7.
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 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones (“Clinical Translation of Tumor Acidosis Measurements with AcidoCEST MRI”).
Regarding claim 1, Jones teaches a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus, comprising:
processing circuitry configured to obtain information about a contrast agent containing a plurality of substances with mutually different chemical shifts [See iopamidol. See also rest of reference.], and determine, based on the obtained information, a frequency band related to a decrease in a magnetic resonance signal due to the mutually different chemical shifts [See Materials and Methods section. See also In Vivo MRI Acquisition Methods section. See 3.0 to 6.9 ppm, wherein the Introduction section discloses that the “acidoCEST MRI” protocol measures the two CEST signals (known 4.2 ppm and 5.6 ppm peaks) produced by the amide protons of iopamidol which is inside the band 3.0 to 6.9 ppm. See also rest of reference.]; and
sequence control circuitry configured to acquire, prior to contrast enhancement using the contrast agent, a first magnetic resonance signal group in the determined frequency band by chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) imaging under different saturation pulse conditions [See Materials and Methods section. See also In Vivo MRI Acquisition Methods section. This sequence was repeated with a series of 20 saturation frequencies at 3.0 to 6.9 ppm in 0.1 ppm increments. Image Analysis section, see pre-injection spectra. See also rest of reference.], and acquire, after the contrast enhancement using the contrast agent, a second magnetic resonance signal group in the determined frequency band by CEST imaging under different saturation pulse conditions [See Materials and Methods section. See also In Vivo MRI Acquisition Methods section. This sequence was repeated with a series of 20 saturation frequencies at 3.0 to 6.9 ppm in 0.1 ppm increments. Image Analysis section, see post-injection spectra. See also rest of reference.],
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
calculate a difference between a first Z-spectrum generated based on the first magnetic resonance signal group and a second Z-spectrum generated based on the second magnetic resonance signal group [See Image Analysis section where difference between pre and post-contrast z-spectra images are determined at each saturation frequency.], and
detect, from the calculated difference, a plurality of peaks indicating the decrease in the magnetic resonance signal due to the mutually different chemical shifts of the plurality of substances [See Image Analysis and Results sections where peaks are used to determine pH. See 3.0 to 6.9 ppm, wherein the Introduction section discloses that the “acidoCEST MRI” protocol measures the two CEST signals (known 4.2 ppm and 5.6 ppm peaks) produced by the amide protons of iopamidol which is inside the band 3.0 to 6.9 ppm.].
Regarding claim 3, Jones further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to detect the plurality of peaks by function fitting to a signal-value distribution in the calculated difference or by estimating an approximate form of the signal-value distribution [Image Analysis section, see peaks were fit using Lorentzian line shape or Bloch fitting. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 4, Jones further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine, based on the obtained information, a frequency being outside the determined frequency band and irrelevant of the decrease in the magnetic resonance signal due to the chemical shifts [In Vivo MRI Acquisitions Methods section, wherein WASSR protocol is used and acquired at -2 to 2 ppm. See also rest of reference.],
the sequence control circuitry is further configured to acquire reference MR signals to be a basis of the first Z-spectrum and the second Z-spectrum, by using the determined frequency as a saturation pulse or without using any saturation pulse [Referenced to the water frequency set to 0 ppm as determined from WASSR MRI results. See also rest of reference.],
the first Z-spectrum is generated based on the first magnetic resonance signal group and the acquired reference MR signals [See pre-injection signals. See also rest of reference.], and
the second Z-spectrum is generated based on the second magnetic resonance signal group and the acquired reference MR signals [See post-injection signals. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 5, Jones further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to calculate a state quantity in an imaging region with respect to the first Z-spectrum and the second Z-spectrum according to the detected plurality of peaks and the acquired reference MR signals [See pH is determined. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 6, Jones further teaches wherein the state quantity represents a temperature or pH in the imaging region [See pH is determined. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to claim 7. Claim 7 is the method version of apparatus 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Jones, in view of Fautz (US 2013/0009640).
Regarding claim 2, Jones teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Jones further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the frequency band using a B0 offset generated prior to the CEST imaging [A WASSR MRI protocol identified the B0 offset. See also rest of reference.].
However, Jones is silent in teaching a B0 map.
Fautz, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the frequency band using a B0 map generated prior to the CEST imaging [¶0016, ¶0031. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jones and Fautz because both references are in the field of CEST imaging using MRI and because Fautz teaches it is known in the art to use a B0 to determine the optimum saturation frequency for a specific point in space [Fautz - ¶0016, ¶0031. See also rest of reference.].
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