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 previous prior art rejections of 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 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 1-2, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeller (US 2019/0274582).
Regarding claim 1, Zeller teaches an MRI apparatus, comprising processing circuitry configured to:
acquire an optical image of an object placed on a table of a bed [¶0006-0007, ¶0012. See also rest of reference.];
acquire information on an 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 a specific RF coil to be used for imaging the examination portion of the object from the plurality of available RF coils 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.].
Regarding claim 2, Zeller further teaches further 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, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to select the specific RF coil from the plurality of RF coils provided in the facility [¶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.].
Regarding claim 9, 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.
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(s) 3-4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Zeller, in view of Huang (US 2017/0350953).
Regarding claim 3, Zeller teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Zeller is silent in teaching further comprising a memory configured to store information on a priority order for selecting the specific RF coil depending on the examination portion of the object, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to select the specific RF coil from the plurality of available RF coils based on the priority order.
Huang, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches further comprising a memory configured to store information on a priority order for selecting the specific RF coil depending on the examination portion of the object, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to select the specific RF coil from the plurality of available RF coils based on the priority order [¶0007. 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 Huang because both references are in the field of selecting coils for use in MRI and because Huang teaches that it is known and convention to select coils based on priority/ranking to select a coil that is best for acquiring the image data [Huang - ¶0007. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 4, Zeller teaches the limitations of claim 2, which this claim depends from.
Zeller is silent in teaching wherein the memory is further configured to store information on a priority order for selecting the specific RF coil depending on the examination portion of the object, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to select the specific RF coil from the plurality of available RF coils based on the priority order.
Huang, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the memory is further configured to store information on a priority order for selecting the specific RF coil depending on the examination portion of the object, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to select the specific RF coil from the plurality of available RF coils based on the priority order [¶0007. 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 Huang because both references are in the field of selecting coils for use in MRI and because Huang teaches that it is known and convention to select coils based on priority/ranking to select a coil that is best for acquiring the image data [Huang - ¶0007. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 13, Zeller and Huang teach the limitations of claim 3, 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.].
However, Zeller is silent in teaching a priority order.
Huang 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 [¶0007, wherein an RF coil is selected from the RF coil set based on the priority information. See also rest of reference.].
the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zeller and Huang because both references are in the field of selecting coils for use in MRI and because Huang teaches that it is known and convention to select coils based on priority/ranking to select a coil that is best for acquiring the image data [Huang - ¶0007. See also rest of reference.].
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Zeller, in view of Asaba (US 2014/0002083).
Regarding claim 5, Zeller teaches 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 is 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 Asaba because both 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 teaches 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 is 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 Asaba because both 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 Huang (US 2024/0268703, herein referred as ‘703).
Regarding claim 8, Zeller teaches 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, Haider is silent in teaching a bending degree of a joint if it is included in the examination portion.
‘703, 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 ‘703 because both references are in the field of acquiring pre-scan images for MRI and because ‘703 teaches it is known in the art to determine joint angles for accurately imaging the patient [‘703 - ¶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 Rothgang (US 2017/0311841).
Regarding claim 10, Zeller teaches the limitations of claim 6, 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 is 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 Rothgang because both references 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
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