DETAILED ACTIONS
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim this application being in benefit of foreign priority from Japanese Patent Application No. JP2023-036490 filed on March 9, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on 02/16/2024 and 03/07/2024 were reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The 13-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a body motion acquisition unit”, an index acquisition unit”, and “an output unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajnal et al., (US 2022/0349963 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hajnal, in view of Maclaren et al., "Measurement and Correction of Microscopic Head Motion during Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain" (2012), hereinafter referred to as Maclaren.
Claim 1
Hajnal discloses an object motion measurement apparatus (Hajnal, Fig. 1) comprising:
an imaging device which images an object (Hajnal, [0013], “the at least one sensor configured to track eye movement of the subject comprises at least one camera forming part of the user equipment, and wherein the cameras are located on the user equipment a distance from a subject placed in the user equipment selected to mitigate electromagnetic interference in an MRI image captured by use of the scanner coil.”); and
at least one memory (Hajnal, [0094], “Processing devices (the computer and similar) required to create and maintain a virtual reality environment may, of course, still be located outside the scanner bore”, computer comprise of a memory) and at least one processor (Hajnal, [0059], “processor”) which function as:
a body motion acquisition unit configured to acquire information related to a motion of the object from an image imaged by the imaging device (Hajnal, [0022], “the tracked eye movement comprises determining, from images obtained by the sensors, subject head movement and wherein the system is configured to use the determined head movement to correct or compensate MRI images obtained by the MRI scanner.”, [0023], “changes in subject head pose are estimated based on displacements of eye corners determined from one or more images of the subject's eye captured by the sensors, and wherein the changes are used to provide motion compensation”);
an index acquisition unit (Hajnal, [0013], “the at least one sensor configured to track eye movement of the subject comprises at least one camera forming part of the user equipment, and wherein the cameras are located on the user equipment a distance from a subject placed in the user equipment selected to mitigate electromagnetic interference in an MRI image captured by use of the scanner coil.”) configured to acquire from the image imaged by the imaging device an index which reflects vibration of an imaging apparatus (Hajnal, [0088], “Similarly, as the table moves into a scanner bore, it is likely to be apparent from stimuli received by their body that they are being moved. Providing visual VR input to the subject which accounts for that movement and/or vibration generated by an MRI scanner can allow the subject to relax and feel more comfortable and initiate a sense of complete immersion into a virtual environment. “, [0089], “movement sensors may be mounted on the subject support which provide one or more signal to the VR system so that visual stimulus in the virtual environment can be matched to real world gross movement of components of the MRI scanner being experienced by a subject. In some arrangements, analysis of a live video stream of a subject within a MRI scanner room, or within the scanner bore can be used to provide an indication of likely stimuli being experienced by a subject.”), which is different from the imaging device and images the object (Hajnal, [0013], “the at least one sensor configured to track eye movement of the subject comprises at least one camera forming part of the user equipment, and wherein the cameras are located on the user equipment a distance from a subject placed in the user equipment selected to mitigate electromagnetic interference in an MRI image captured by use of the scanner coil.”, MRI scanner is analogous to the imaging apparatus).
Hajnal does not explicitly disclose an output unit configured to output the index to the imaging apparatus.
However, Maclaren teaches an output unit configured to output the index (Maclaren, page 2, “The marker is backed with a retroreflective material to reduce the lighting requirements of the camera and lighting unit (CLU)”, page 3, “When the CLU is installed in a new scanner, an initial scannercamera cross-calibration procedure must be performed. This typically takes 1–2 hours, including the time required to mount the camera on the inside of the scanner bore.”, CLU is analogous to the imaging device and scanner is analogous to the imaging apparatus, page 7, “The effect of imaging on CLU vibrations was measured by recording tracking data from a stationary phantom during imaging with a gradient echo sequence. This will slightly overestimate the effect of vibrations (i.e., underestimate the precision), due to vibrations of the phantom itself”,) to the imaging apparatus (Maclaren, page 3, “We tested the function and MR compatibility of the system at three common field strengths (1.5 T, 3 T and 7 T) and applied in vivo prospective motion correction using the CLU”, Abstract, “Prospective motion correction is a technique that addresses this problem by tracking head motion and continuously updating the imaging pulse sequence, locking the imaging volume position and orientation relative to the moving brain. The accuracy and precision of current MR-compatible tracking systems and navigator methods allows the quantification and correction of large-scale motion, but not the correction of very small involuntary movements in six degrees of freedom”, using the CLU output, the imaging pulse sequence of MR scanner is updated in real-time).
Hajnal and Maclaren are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of MRI motion correction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Hajnal to incorporate the teachings of Maclaren of an output unit configured to output the index to the imaging apparatus. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been because the use for prospective motion correction, the system enables improvement in image quality at both 3 T and 7 T, even in experienced and cooperative subjects trained to remain motionless during imaging (Maclaren, Abstract).
Claim 2
The combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren discloses the object motion measurement apparatus according to claim 1 (Hajnal, Fig. 1), wherein the imaging apparatus executes imaging processing based on the index (Maclaren, page 3, “We tested the function and MR compatibility of the system at three common field strengths (1.5 T, 3 T and 7 T) and applied in vivo prospective motion correction using the CLU”, Abstract, “Prospective motion correction is a technique that addresses this problem by tracking head motion and continuously updating the imaging pulse sequence, locking the imaging volume position and orientation relative to the moving brain. The accuracy and precision of current MR-compatible tracking systems and navigator methods allows the quantification and correction of large-scale motion, but not the correction of very small involuntary movements in six degrees of freedom”, using the CLU output, the imaging pulse sequence of MR scanner is updated in real-time).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Hajnal and Maclaren references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 2 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the apparatus recited in Claim 2 is met by Hajnal and Maclaren.
Claim 3
The combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren discloses the object motion measurement apparatus according to claim 1 (Hajnal, Fig. 1), wherein the imaging device is an optical imaging device (Hajnal, [0057], “from images obtained by the sensors, subject head movement and wherein the system is configured to use the determined head movement to correct or compensate MRI images obtained by the MRI scanner.”), and the imaging apparatus is a medical image imaging apparatus (Hajnal, [0058], “other component of a subject's body is being imaged by the MRI scanner”).
Claim 13
The combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren discloses the object motion measurement apparatus according to claim 1 (Hajnal, Fig. 1), wherein the body motion acquisition unit changes a method for acquiring the information (Hajnal, [0023], “changes in subject head pose are estimated based on displacements of eye corners determined from one or more images of the subject's eye captured by the sensors, and wherein the changes are used to provide motion compensation.”, [0066], “Changes in head pose can be estimated from displacements of eye corners and used to provide motion compensation. Some arrangements provide an interactive gaze target to provide subject feedback and improve overall engagement with a target. For example, an interactive gaze target may comprise an icon which changes or evolves whilst a subject's gaze remains in contact with the target. Such an arrangement, in which continued and immediately obvious feedback is provided to a subject based on a consistent gaze pattern can aid use of a VR system in which gaze control is a primary input for subject interaction with a virtual environment.”) related to the motion of the object based on the index (Hajnal, [0110], “may be provided on a headset, or on a table on which a subject is locatable, such that any physical movement experienced by a subject in the physical environment surrounding them can be accommodated and coincident with audio and visual material provided to a subject. For example, vibration experienced in the real world by a subject may result in distortion or “vibration” of visual and/or audio material provided to a subject within the virtual environment”).
Claim 14
The combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren discloses the object motion measurement apparatus according to claim 1 (Hajnal, Fig. 1), wherein the imaging apparatus changes an imaging condition based on the index (Maclaren, page 3, “We tested the function and MR compatibility of the system at three common field strengths (1.5 T, 3 T and 7 T) and applied in vivo prospective motion correction using the CLU”, Abstract, “Prospective motion correction is a technique that addresses this problem by tracking head motion and continuously updating the imaging pulse sequence, locking the imaging volume position and orientation relative to the moving brain. The accuracy and precision of current MR-compatible tracking systems and navigator methods allows the quantification and correction of large-scale motion, but not the correction of very small involuntary movements in six degrees of freedom”, using the CLU output, the imaging pulse sequence of MR scanner is updated in real-time).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Hajnal and Maclaren references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 14 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the apparatus recited in Claim 14 is met by Hajnal and Maclaren.
Claim 15
The combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren discloses the object motion measurement apparatus according to claim 14 (Hajnal, Fig. 1), wherein the imaging apparatus estimates, based on the index, part of information of the object to be acquired by imaging with the imaging apparatus (Maclaren, page 3, “We tested the function and MR compatibility of the system at three common field strengths (1.5 T, 3 T and 7 T) and applied in vivo prospective motion correction using the CLU”, Abstract, “Prospective motion correction is a technique that addresses this problem by tracking head motion and continuously updating the imaging pulse sequence, locking the imaging volume position and orientation relative to the moving brain. The accuracy and precision of current MR-compatible tracking systems and navigator methods allows the quantification and correction of large-scale motion, but not the correction of very small involuntary movements in six degrees of freedom”, using the CLU output, the imaging pulse sequence of MR scanner is updated in real-time).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Hajnal and Maclaren references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 15 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the apparatus recited in Claim 15 is met by Hajnal and Maclaren.
Claim 16
The combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren discloses the object motion measurement apparatus according to claim 1 (Hajnal, Fig. 1), wherein the body motion acquisition unit acquires information of a motion of a head of a person as the information related to the motion of the object (Hajnal, [0022], “the tracked eye movement comprises determining, from images obtained by the sensors, subject head movement and wherein the system is configured to use the determined head movement to correct or compensate MRI images obtained by the MRI scanner”).
Claim 17
The combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren discloses an imaging apparatus (Hajnal, Fig. 1) comprising: the object motion measurement apparatus according to claim 1 (Hajnal, Fig. 1) ; and at least one memory (Hajnal, [0094], “Processing devices (the computer and similar) required to create and maintain a virtual reality environment may, of course, still be located outside the scanner bore”, computer comprise of a memory) and at least one processor (Hajnal, [0059], “processor”) which function as a processing unit (Hajnal, [0059], “processor”) configured to execute processing which uses the information related to the motion of the object that is output from the object motion measurement apparatus (Hajnal, [0022], “the tracked eye movement comprises determining, from images obtained by the sensors, subject head movement and wherein the system is configured to use the determined head movement to correct or compensate MRI images obtained by the MRI scanner”).
Claim 18
The combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 17 (Hajnal, Fig. 1), wherein the processing unit reconstructs an image of the object (Maclaren, page 7, “All MR imaging sequences were product sequences modified by the authors to allow real-time update of the imaging volume during scan execution. All acquired MR data were used in image reconstruction (i.e., no data rejection and reacquisition strategy was employed)”, Fig. 2 shows the image reconstruction) using the information related to the motion of the object (Maclaren, Abstract, “Prospective motion correction is a technique that addresses this problem by tracking head motion”).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Hajnal and Maclaren references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 18 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the apparatus recited in Claim 18 is met by Hajnal and Maclaren.
Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons as those described in claim 1. The additional elements in Claim 19 (the combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren) discloses includes: an object motion measurement method (Hajnal, 0045, “It will also be appreciated that eye tracking can provide a useful neuroscience/clinical evaluation tool and can be used to provide prospective tracking of a subject's head for MRI motion correction”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Hajnal and Maclaren references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 19 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 19 is met by Hajnal and Maclaren.
Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons as those described in claim 1. The additional elements in Claim 20 (the combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren) discloses includes: a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Hajnal, [0094], “Processing devices (the computer and similar) required to create and maintain a virtual reality environment may, of course, still be located outside the scanner bore”, computer comprise of a memory) that stores a program for causing a computer (Hajnal, [0094], “Processing devices (the computer and similar) required to create and maintain a virtual reality environment may, of course, still be located outside the scanner bore”) to execute an object motion measurement method (Hajnal, 0045, “It will also be appreciated that eye tracking can provide a useful neuroscience/clinical evaluation tool and can be used to provide prospective tracking of a subject's head for MRI motion correction”). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Hajnal and Maclaren references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 20 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the medium recited in Claim 20 is met by Hajnal and Maclaren.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajnal in view of Maclaren in further view of Foerster et al., “Magnetic Field Shift due to Mechanical Vibration in Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging” (2005), hereinafter referred to as Foerster.
Claim 4
The combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren discloses the object motion measurement apparatus according to claim 1 (Hajnal, Fig. 1).
The combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren does not explicitly disclose wherein the index acquisition unit acquires the index based on an amplitude of the vibration.
However, Foerster teaches wherein the index acquisition unit (Foerster, Abstract, “Mechanical vibrations of the gradient coil system during readout in echo-planar imaging (EPI) can increase the temperature of the gradient system and alter the magnetic field distribution during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). This effect is enhanced by resonant modes of vibrations and results in apparent motion along the phase encoding direction in fMRI studies. The magnetic field drift was quantified during EPI by monitoring the resonance frequency interleaved with the EPI acquisition, and a novel method is proposed to correct the apparent motion.”) acquires the index based on an amplitude of the vibration (Foerster, Fig. 2, Frequency response curve showing the amplitude of vibrations as a function of the EPI readout z-gradient frequency. Fine adjustment (10%) of the acquisition bandwidth resulted in a fourfold (12 dB) increase of the vibration amplitude from quiet to loud EPI protocol”).
Hajnal, Maclaren, and Foerster are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of MRI motion correction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Hajnal and Maclaren to incorporate the teachings of Foerster wherein the index acquisition unit acquires the index based on an amplitude of the vibration. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to efficiently corrects spurious motion due to magnetic field drifts during fMRI (Foerster, Abstract).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajnal in view of Maclaren in further view of Foerster in further view of Kochunov et al., “Retrospective Motion Correction Protocol for High-Resolution Anatomical MRI” (2006), hereinafter referred to as Kochunov.
Claim 5
The combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren in further view of Foerster discloses the object motion measurement apparatus according to claim 4 (Hajnal, Fig. 1).
The combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren in further view of Foerster does not explicitly disclose wherein the index is a point spread function (PSF) of the image in which a motion blur has been produced by the vibration.
Kochunov teaches wherein the index is a point spread function (PSF) of the image in which a motion blur has been produced by the vibration (Kochunov, page 959, “When images with interscan motion are averaged the result is a spatially blurred average image. For translation-only motions this blurring can be modeled using a single blurring point spread function (PSF).”).
Hajnal, Maclaren, Foerster, and Kochunov are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of MRI motion correction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Hajnal and Maclaren to incorporate the teachings of Kochunov wherein the index acquisition unit acquires the index based on an amplitude of the vibration. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to broaden with distance from the axis of rotation (Kochunov, page 959).
Claim 6
The combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren in further view of Foerster in further view of Kochunov discloses the object motion measurement apparatus according to claim 5 (Hajnal, Fig. 1), wherein the index acquisition unit acquires the point spread function using a first image imaged by the imaging device (Kochunov, page 959, “When images with interscan motion are averaged the result is a spatially blurred average image. For translation-only motions this blurring can be modeled using a single blurring point spread function (PSF).”), and a second image imaged by the imaging device in a state where the vibration is less than the vibration in the first image (Kochunov, page 959, “Rotation-induced blurring must be modeled using spatially varying PSFs. For supine head imaging the axis of rotation is likely near the posterior surface of the head, leading to the largest rotation type blurring toward the anterior surface of the head. Overall blurring is a combination of these two rigid body motions with a net effect to broaden the imaging system PSF. As the system PSF increases, partial volume averaging increases, which alters tissue signal distributions in histograms of the averaged images (Fig. 2). We analyzed GM and WM distributions to assess image quality difference”, page 961, “Our comparison of average 3-D images with and without motion correction is potentially biased, since subjects were allowed to move during interscan intervals to adjust their posture and take a more comfortable position. Such movements can drastically reduce the quality of the non-motion-corrected average image. To test for improvement by RMC where interscan motion was expected to be small, we studied an ADHD child who was asleep throughout the study”).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Hajnal, Maclaren, Foerster, and Kochunov references presented in the rejection of Claim 5, apply to Claim 6 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the apparatus recited in Claim 6 is met by Hajnal, Maclaren, Foerster, and Kochunov.
Claims 7-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajnal in view of Maclaren in further view of Kochunov.
Claim 7
The combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren discloses the object motion measurement apparatus according to claim 1 (Hajnal, Fig. 1).
The combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren does not explicitly disclose wherein the body motion acquisition unit executes image processing on the image based on the index.
However, Kochunov teaches wherein the body motion acquisition unit executes image processing (Abstract, “Interscan motion correction was done by spatially registering images to the third image and forming a single average motion-corrected image. “, page 959, “the six time-segmented 3-D raw images were motion-corrected by registering each to the approximate mid-time image of the study (third image). FLIRT image registration software was used with the following settings: six parameters (three translations and three rotations); normalized spatial correlation as the cost function” )on the image based on the index (Kochunov, page 959, “RMS distance includes both translation and rotation effects, providing an index of motion”, ““When images with interscan motion are averaged the result is a spatially blurred average image. For translation-only motions this blurring can be modeled using a single blurring point spread function (PSF).).
Hajnal, Maclaren, and Kochunov are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of MRI motion correction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Hajnal and Maclaren to incorporate the teachings of Kochunov wherein the body motion acquisition unit executes image processing on the image based on the index. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to provide a better final image than a single scan of the same overall duration for studies when head motion is a problem (Kochunov, page 958).
Claim 8
The combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren in further view of Kochunov discloses the object motion measurement apparatus according to claim 7 (Hajnal, Fig. 1), wherein the image processing is processing of reducing (Kochunov, Abstract, “Interscan motion correction was done by spatially registering images to the third image and forming a single average motion-corrected image. “, page 959, “the six time-segmented 3-D raw images were motion-corrected by registering each to the approximate mid-time image of the study (third image). FLIRT image registration software was used with the following settings: six parameters (three translations and three rotations); normalized spatial correlation as the cost function”, page 961, “Retrospective motion correction (RMC) based on averaging of multiple sequential high-resolution 3-D images reduced the incidence of motion artifacts compared with prior studies in our lab that used a single high-resolution 3-D image”) based on the index a motion blur produced in the image by the vibration (Kochunov, page 959, “RMS distance includes both translation and rotation effects, providing an index of motion”, ““When images with interscan motion are averaged the result is a spatially blurred average image. For translation-only motions this blurring can be modeled using a single blurring point spread function (PSF).).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Hajnal, Maclaren, and Kochunov references presented in the rejection of Claim 7, apply to Claim 8 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the apparatus recited in Claim 8 is met by Hajnal, Maclaren, and Kochunov.
Claim 10
The combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren in further view of Kochunov discloses the object motion measurement apparatus according to claim 7 (Hajnal, Fig. 1), wherein the body motion acquisition unit changes the image processing on the image (Abstract, “Interscan motion correction was done by spatially registering images to the third image and forming a single average motion-corrected image. “, page 959, “the six time-segmented 3-D raw images were motion-corrected by registering each to the approximate mid-time image of the study (third image). FLIRT image registration software was used with the following settings: six parameters (three translations and three rotations); normalized spatial correlation as the cost function”, page 961, “To deal with this issue, we used an adaptive threshold to zero out pixel values below the median background value in individual images. This approach forced a large number of background pixels to zero, leading to reduced spatial coherence in image noise when averaging and a reduction in the background signal (Fig. 3)”). ) based on the index (Kochunov, page 959, “RMS distance includes both translation and rotation effects, providing an index of motion”, ““When images with interscan motion are averaged the result is a spatially blurred average image. For translation-only motions this blurring can be modeled using a single blurring point spread function (PSF).).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Hajnal, Maclaren, and Kochunov references presented in the rejection of Claim 7, apply to Claim 10 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the apparatus recited in Claim 10 is met by Hajnal, Maclaren, and Kochunov.
Claim 11
The combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren in further view of Kochunov discloses the object motion measurement apparatus according to claim 10 (Hajnal, Fig. 1), wherein a change of the image processing is a change of a threshold of binarization processing of the image (Kochunov, page 961, “To deal with this issue, we used an adaptive threshold to zero out pixel values below the median background value in individual images. This approach forced a large number of background pixels to zero, leading to reduced spatial coherence in image noise when averaging and a reduction in the background signal (Fig. 3)”).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Hajnal, Maclaren, and Kochunov references presented in the rejection of Claim 7, apply to Claim 11 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the apparatus recited in Claim 11 is met by Hajnal, Maclaren, and Kochunov.
Claim 12
The combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren in further view of Kochunov discloses the object motion measurement apparatus according to claim 7 (Hajnal, Fig. 1), wherein the body motion acquisition unit acquires the information related to the motion of the object using an image generated by changing the image processing (Abstract, “Interscan motion correction was done by spatially registering images to the third image and forming a single average motion-corrected image. “, page 959, “the six time-segmented 3-D raw images were motion-corrected by registering each to the approximate mid-time image of the study (third image). FLIRT image registration software was used with the following settings: six parameters (three translations and three rotations); normalized spatial correlation as the cost function”, page 961, “To deal with this issue, we used an adaptive threshold to zero out pixel values below the median background value in individual images. This approach forced a large number of background pixels to zero, leading to reduced spatial coherence in image noise when averaging and a reduction in the background signal (Fig. 3)”).).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajnal in view of Maclaren in further view of Kochunov in further view of Andronesi et al., “Motion Correction Methods for Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy: Experts’ Consensus Recommendations” (2021), hereinafter referred to as Andronesi.
Claim 9
The combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren in further view of Kochunov discloses the object motion measurement apparatus according to claim 8 (Hajnal, Fig. 1).
The combination of Hajnal in view of Maclaren in further view of Kochunov does not explicitly disclose wherein the image processing is processing of reducing the motion blur by deconvolution based on the index.
However, Andronesi teaches wherein the image processing is processing of reducing the motion blur by deconvolution based on the index (Andronesi, page 5, “MRS data can be phase-corrected on a shot-by-shot basis using an interleaved water FID navigator signal acquisition during metabolite recovery time (within a single TR), and by performing a deconvolution of individual metabolite signals with the navigator information. Phase-coherent averaging of the individual transients has been demonstrated to be effective in correcting for motion-induced frequency drifts in SVS”).
Hajnal, Maclaren, Kochunov, and Andronesi are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of MRI motion correction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Hajnal and Maclaren to incorporate the teachings of Andronesi wherein the image processing is processing of reducing the motion blur by deconvolution based on the index. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been because it demonstrated to be effective in correcting for motion-induced frequency drifts in SVS (Andronesi, page 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENISE G ALFONSO whose telephone number is (571)272-1360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571)272-3382. 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.
/DENISE G ALFONSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662