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 with respect to the prior art rejection of amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same reference combination applied in the prior rejection of record.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a plurality of available RF coils” in line 14 should be “the plurality of available RF coils”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5, 7, 8-10, and 13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the specific RF coil" in lines 16 and second-to-last line of claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the specific RF coil” should be “the specific RF coil type”.
Claims 5, 7, 8-10, and 13 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is considered indefinite for depending on previously cancelled claim 3.
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, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Zeller (US 2019/0274582), in view of Tomiha (US 2017/0343626).
Regarding claim 1, Zeller teaches an MRI apparatus, comprising:
a memory configured to:
store information on a plurality of RF coils provided in a facility as the plurality of available RF coils, the facility being a place where the MRI apparatus is installed [¶0030-0032, wherein an RF coil unit is selected, from all available RF coil units, based on the patient data including the circumference of the head. ¶0067. ¶0073. If the coils are selected by a calculation computer, then information of available coils is stored on the calculation computer. See also rest of reference.]; and
processing circuitry configured to:
acquire an optical image of the object placed on a table of a bed [¶0006-0007, ¶0012. See also rest of reference.];
acquire information on the examination portion of the object [¶0006-0007, ¶0012. See also rest of reference.];
estimate an examination region and a target region of the object from the optical image, wherein the examination region includes the examination portion of the object [See investigation region. See also rest of reference.], and the target region is included in a physical accommodation region of each of a plurality of available RF coils [See body areas or body regions such as head, knee, upper body, etc. See ¶0012. See also rest of reference.]; and
select the specific RF coil to be used for imaging the examination portion of the object from the plurality of available RF coils provided in the facility based on the estimated examination region and the estimated target region from the optical image and information on the plurality of available RF coils specified from the acquired information on the examination portion [¶0030-0032, wherein an RF coil unit is selected, from all available RF coil units, based on the patient data including the circumference of the head. ¶0067. ¶0073. See also rest of reference.].
However, Zeller is silent in teaching store information on a priority order for selecting a specific RF coil type from among the plurality of available RF coils depending on an examination portion of an object and a type of the selected specific RF coil being the specific RF coil type based on the information on the priority order.
Tomiha, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches store information on a priority order for selecting a specific RF coil type from among the plurality of available RF coils depending on an examination portion of an object [See priority order A, B, and C. See ¶0064, the coil classification information 11a includes information of the degree of priority set based on the region that can be imaged by using the receiver coil 6. ¶0088-0093. See Figs. 2-4. See also rest of reference.] and a type of the selected specific RF coil being the specific RF coil type based on the information on the priority order [See priority order A, B, and C. See ¶0064, the coil classification information 11a includes information of the degree of priority set based on the region that can be imaged by using the receiver coil 6. ¶0088-0093. See Figs. 2-4. See also rest of reference.]. Tomiha further teaches store information on a plurality of RF coils provided in a facility as the plurality of available RF coils, the facility being a place where the MRI apparatus is installed [¶0088-0093, wherein plural receive coils are added. Plural receive coil information is determined. Therefore, the available receive coils that are provided are determined. See Figs. 2-4. See also rest of reference.]; acquire an optical image of the object placed on a table of a bed [¶0142-0143. See also rest of reference.]; acquire information on the examination portion of the object [¶0076, wherein the imaging region is selected. Fig. 3, wherein the regions are shown in 41-42. See also rest of reference.]; estimate an examination region and of the object from the optical image [¶0144, wherein “The presentation control function 15c then estimates in which region the place on the subject S is. The presentation control function 15c causes to display the list of generic terms of the protocol groups preset with respect to the estimated region in the field 42 on the screen 40, as the list of generic terms of the candidates for the protocol groups.” See also rest of reference.]; select the specific RF coil to be used for imaging the examination portion of the object from the plurality of available RF coils provided in the facility based on the estimated examination region and information on the plurality of available RF coils specified from the acquired information on the examination portion, a type of the selected specific RF coil being the specific RF coil type based on the information on the priority order [See priority order A, B, and C. See ¶0064, the coil classification information 11a includes information of the degree of priority set based on the region that can be imaged by using the receiver coil 6. ¶0088-0093. See Figs. 2-4. See also rest of reference.].
Therefore, 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 Zeller and Tomiha because both references are in the field of determining and selecting appropriate RF coils for MRI and because Tomiha teaches it is known in the art to include priority information when imaging specific portions of the human body [Tomiha – Figs. 2-4 and corresponding description].
Regarding claim 9, Zeller and Tomiha teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Zeller further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to present at least one of a selected specific RF coil and a coil setting position of the selected specific RF coil to a user by using at least one of monitor display and projection display [¶0032, wherein a projection unit is used to shine a light on a selected coil unit where the coil unit is positioned (i.e. coil setting position) to identify the selected coil. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to claim 11. Claim 11 is merely the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of apparatus claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to claim 12. Claim 12 is merely the method version of apparatus claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Zeller and Tomiha teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Zeller further teaches selecting only one specific RF coil from the plurality of available RF coils [¶0030-0032, wherein an RF coil unit is selected, from all available RF coil units, based on the patient data including the circumference of the head. ¶0067. ¶0073. See also rest of reference.], the specific RF coil type being at least one of a head coil, a neck coil, a chest coil, a spine coil, an upper limbs coil, a lower limbs coil, a knee coil, a Flex-M size coil, a Flex L size coil, and a whole body coil [See ¶0031, see head RF antenna units, knee RF antenna units, a chest radio-frequency antenna unit, etc. See also rest of reference.].
However, Zeller is silent in teaching a priority order.
Tomiha further teaches wherein the information on the priority order is information for selecting only one specific RF coil from the plurality of available RF coils, the specific RF coil type being at least one of a head coil, a neck coil, a chest coil, a spine coil, an upper limbs coil, a lower limbs coil, a knee coil, a Flex-M size coil, a Flex L size coil, and a whole body coil [See priority order A, B, and C. See ¶0064, the coil classification information 11a includes information of the degree of priority set based on the region that can be imaged by using the receiver coil 6. ¶0088-0093. See Figs. 2-4. See also rest of reference.].
Therefore, 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 Zeller and Tomiha because both references are in the field of determining and selecting appropriate RF coils for MRI and because Tomiha teaches it is known in the art to include priority information when imaging specific portions of the human body [Tomiha – Figs. 2-4 and corresponding description].
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Zeller, in view of previously cited Tomiha, and in further view of Asaba (US 2014/0002083).
Regarding claim 5, Zeller and Tomiha teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Zeller further teaches the physical accommodation region, which is part of an RF coil and can physically accommodate the examination portion of the object [¶0030-0032, wherein an RF coil unit is selected, from all available RF coil units, based on the patient data including the circumference of the head. ¶0067. ¶0073. See also rest of reference.].
However, Zeller and Tomiha are silent in teaching wherein the information on the plurality of available RF coils includes information on: a sensitivity region where magnetic resonance signals from the object can be detected with satisfactory sensitivity in terms of image reconstruction.
Asaba, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the information on the plurality of available RF coils includes information on: a sensitivity region where magnetic resonance signals from the object can be detected with satisfactory sensitivity in terms of image reconstruction [See sensitivity and sensitivity scores. See also rest of reference.]; and the physical accommodation region, which is part of an RF coil and can physically accommodate the examination portion of the object [See front array coil, which accommodates the abdomen. See the two parts of the rear array, which accommodate different parts of the back side of the patient. 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 Zeller and Tomiha with the teachings of Asaba because all references are in the field of selecting RF coils for use in MRI and because Asaba teaches it is known in the art to select RF coils based on the highest sensitivity to generate the best MR signals [Asaba - See Fig. 6 and corresponding description. Sensitivity scores are used to prioritize the coil modes. See rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Zeller and Tomiha teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Zeller further teaches the physical accommodation region, which includes the target region of the object [¶0030-0032, wherein an RF coil unit is selected, from all available RF coil units, based on the patient data including the circumference of the head. ¶0067. ¶0073. See also rest of reference.].
However, Zeller and Tomiha are silent in teaching wherein the processing circuitry is configured to select the specific RF coil that includes: a sensitivity region including the examination region of the object.
Asaba, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to select the specific RF coil that includes: a sensitivity region including the examination region of the object [See sensitivity and sensitivity scores. See also rest of reference.]; and the physical accommodation region, which includes the target region of the object [See front array coil, which accommodates the abdomen. See the two parts of the rear array, which accommodate different parts of the back side of the patient. 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 Zeller and Tomiha with the teachings of Asaba because all references are in the field of selecting RF coils for use in MRI and because Asaba teaches it is known in the art to select RF coils based on the highest sensitivity to generate the best MR signals [Asaba - See Fig. 6 and corresponding description. Sensitivity scores are used to prioritize the coil modes. See rest of reference.].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Zeller, in view of previously cited Tomiha, and in further view of Huang (US 2024/0268703).
Regarding claim 8, Zeller and Tomiha teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Zeller further teaches wherein, in estimation of at least one of the examination region and the target region from the optical image, the processing circuitry is further configured to reflect a posture of the object placed on the table [¶0012. See also rest of reference.].
However, Zeller and Tomiha are silent in teaching a bending degree of a joint if it is included in the examination portion.
Huang, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches estimation of at least one of the examination region and the target region from the optical image, the processing circuitry is further configured to reflect a posture of the object placed on the table and a bending degree of a joint if it is included in the examination portion [¶0153. See also scout image. 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 Zeller and Tomiha with the teachings of Huang because all references are in the field of acquiring pre-scan images for MRI and because Huang teaches it is known in the art to determine joint angles for accurately imaging the patient [Huang - ¶0153. See also scout image. See also rest of reference.].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Zeller, in view of previously cited Tomiha, and in further view of Rothgang (US 2017/0311841).
Regarding claim 10, Zeller and Tomiha teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Zeller further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: detect movement of the object from the optical image: and present detected information indicating that the object has moved to a user in a case of detecting the movement of the object after estimation of the examination region and the target region of the object from the optical image [¶0035. See also rest of reference.].
However, Zeller and Tomiha are silent in teaching before setting of the specific RF coil.
Rothgang further teaches detect movement of the object from the optical image [See 3D camera. Fig. 2, step S6 wherein repositioning is determined. See also rest of reference.]; and present detected information indicating that the object has moved to a user in a case of detecting the movement of the object after estimation of the examination region and the target region of the object from the optical image and before setting of the specific RF coil [See 3D camera. Fig. 2, step S6 wherein repositioning is determined then S7 occurs, which determines coil settings. In step S4, the region of interest is determined. ¶0011. 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 Zeller and Tomiha with the teachings of Rothgang because Zeller and Rothgang are in the field of determining motion of a patient in MRI and because Rothgang teaches it is known in the art to determine the position of patient multiple times in case of repositioning [Rothgang – Fig. 2 and ¶0011. See also rest of reference.].
Conclusion
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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 2858
Prosecution Insights