DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 of this title, 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.
3. Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al (US Pub: 20120093381) and in further view of Skoch et al (Spectroscopic imaging: Basic principles, 03/03/2008), Bolan et al (Automated Acquisition Planning for Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy in Brain Cancer, 01/06/2022) (Applicant submitted reference), and Parmar et al (Multi-voxel MR spectroscopic imaging of the brain: utility in clinical setting-initial results, 01/04/2005).
Regarding claim 1, Fan et al teaches: A computer-implemented method for performing multi-voxel spectroscopy, comprising: obtaining, at a processor, structural magnetic resonance imaging data of a brain of a subject acquired with a magnetic resonance imaging scanner; performing, via the processor, skull stripping on the structural magnetic resonance imaging data to generate a skull stripped brain image [abstract, p0019]; utilizing, via the processor, a trained deep learning-based segmentation model to generate a lesion core mask from the skull stripped brain image [p0023 (Segmentation is performed on pre-processed skull stripped brain for tumor mask.)];
Fan et al does not disclose avoiding aliasing. In the same field of endeavor, Skoch et al teaches: locating, via the processor, a slice with largest volume of lesion present in the lesion core mask; calculating, via the processor, a voxel volume that avoids aliasing from the slice based on a field of view [fig. 5, page 233: 5.1.)].
Selecting the largest lesion would have been an obvious choice used clinically to place spectroscopy voxels for improved accuracy. Nevertheless, Bolan et al, in the same field of endeavor, discloses optimization of the voxel geometry to maximize tumor coverage in [page 2: p02]. Bolan et al also teaches automatic tumor segmentation and spectroscopy voxel placement [abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to locate the largest slice with lesion for voxel optimization.
Fan et al in view of Skoch et al and Bolan et al does not select a volume of interest having both lesion and normal tissue. In the same field of endeavor, Parmar et al teaches: automatically selecting, via the processor, a volume of interest in the brain having both the lesion and normal brain tissue for a multi-voxel spectroscopy scan by the magnetic resonance imaging scanner based on the skull stripped brain image, the lesion core mask, and the voxel volume [page 402: p03 (2)].
Therefore, given Parmer et al’s intention to have both lesion and normal brain tissue for comparison and Bolan et al’s automatic segmentation and spectroscopy voxel placement, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to automatically select a VOI having both lesion and normal brain tissue based stripped brain image, lesion mask, and the voxel volume for the largest lesion for improved sample quality for comparison and result optimization.
Claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1.
4. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al (US Pub: 20120093381), Skoch et al (Spectroscopic imaging: Basic principles, 03/03/2008), Bolan et al (Automated Acquisition Planning for Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy in Brain Cancer, 01/06/2022) (Applicant submitted reference), and Parmar et al (Multi-voxel MR spectroscopic imaging of the brain: utility in clinical setting-initial results, 01/04/2005); and in further view of Zhang et al (US Pub: 20090093706).
Regarding claim 2, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Fan et al in view of Skoch et al, Bolan et al, and Parmar et al does not specify identification of hemisphere of the brain. In the same field of endeavor, Zhang et al identifies mid-sagittal plane that separates cerebral hemispheres used for automatic brain scan planning: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein automatically selecting the volume of interest comprises identifying, via the processor, in which hemisphere of the brain that a core of the lesion is located utilizing the brain mask [abstract]. Therefore, given Zhang et al’s automatic mid-sagittal plane identification and Bolan et al’s disclosure on automatic lesion segmentation, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to automatically identify hemisphere of the brain through mask from segmentation for lesion location.
5. Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al (US Pub: 20120093381), Skoch et al (Spectroscopic imaging: Basic principles, 03/03/2008), Bolan et al (Automated Acquisition Planning for Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy in Brain Cancer, 01/06/2022) (Applicant submitted reference), Parmar et al (Multi-voxel MR spectroscopic imaging of the brain: utility in clinical setting-initial results, 01/04/2005), and Zhang et al (US Pub: 20090093706); and in further view of Oz et al (US Pub: 20180156883).
Regarding claim 3, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Fan et al in view of Skoch et al, Bolan et al, Parmar et al , and Zhang et al does not specify VOI selection by utilizing horizontal or vertical VOI. In the same field of endeavor, Oz et al teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein automatically selecting the volume of interest further comprises determining, via the processor, in the brain tissue mask whether to utilize a horizontal volume of interest or vertical volume of interest [p00025, p0035, p0036]. Therefore, given Oz et al’s prescription on computing spatial parameters of VOI such as angulation and a best fit oriented bounding box, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to select VOI bounding box with proper orientation in horizonal or vertical orientation for best fit.
Regarding claim 10, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 3 has been incorporated herein. Skoch et al further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein automatically selecting the volume of interest further comprises determining, via the processor, a number of voxels to be utilized in the volume of interest [page 233: 4.2 (The spatial resolution relates voxel size to number of phase encoding steps, which determines the number of voxels in spectroscopic grid.)].
6. Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al (US Pub: 20120093381), Skoch et al (Spectroscopic imaging: Basic principles, 03/03/2008), Bolan et al (Automated Acquisition Planning for Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy in Brain Cancer, 01/06/2022) (Applicant submitted reference), Parmar et al (Multi-voxel MR spectroscopic imaging of the brain: utility in clinical setting-initial results, 01/04/2005), Zhang et al (US Pub: 20090093706), and Oz et al (US Pub: 20180156883); and in further view of Josey et al (Usefulness of Susceptibility-Weighted Imaging for Voxel Placement in MR Spectroscopy, 2009).
Regarding claim 11, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 3 has been incorporated herein. Fan et al in view of Skoch et al, Bolan et al, Parmar et al, Zhang et al, and Oz et al does not specify acquisition of susceptibility weighted image data. In the same field of endeavor, Josey et al teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising causing, via the processor, acquisition of susceptibility-weighted image data of the brain of the subject for the volume of interest during a multi-voxel spectroscopy scan with the magnetic resonance imaging scanner [summary, page752: p02]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to use susceptibility weighted image to guide voxel placement to avoid noise.
Regarding claim 18, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 17 has been incorporated herein. Claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 4-9, 12, 13, 19, and 20 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. Claims 14-16 are allowed.
Contact
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached on 571-272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682