DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/23/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, the claim limitation “...configured to determine a location of a diagnostic regions from the scouts scans of the first region and second region” in lines 7-8 was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification discloses determining a location of a diagnostic region using scout scans (see par. [0045] of the PG Pub. version of the specification), but the specification does not discloses determining a location of plurality of diagnostic regions from the scout scans.
Claims 16-19 are rejected as they depend from rejected claim 15.
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 2-4, 7-8, 10, 11, 15-19 are 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.
Regarding claims 2, 8, 10 and 11, the claim limitation “the different regions” in claims 2, 8, 10 and 11 is indefinite because it is unclear if these different regions are related to the first and second region that is recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the claim limitation “the second scan” is indefinite because it is unclear what second scan the claim is referring to since claim 1 does not recite a second scan. For examining purpose, it is assumed it is second scout scan.
Regarding claim 10, the claim limitation “wherein performing and determining are interleaved...” is indefinite because it is unclear which performing and determining the claim is referring to since claim 1 recites multiple of performing steps and multiple of determining steps.
Regarding claim 15, the claim limitation “a location of a diagnostic regions” 7 is indefinite because it is unclear how the processor can configured to determine a single location of plurality of different diagnostic regions.
Furthermore claim 15, the claim limitation “the diagnostic region” is indefinite because it is unclear which diagnostic region the claim is referring to since claim 15 recites “the diagnostic regions” in line 7.
Regarding claim 16, the claim limitation “the values” is indefinite because it is unclear what values the claim is referring to since claim 15 does not recite any values.
Furthermore for claim 16, the claim recitation “the scout scan” is indefinite because it is unclear which scout scan the claim is referring to since claim 15 limits two scout scans.
Furthermore for claim 16, the claim limitation “the different scout regions” in line 2 is indefinite because it is unclear if these different scout regions are related to the first and second region that is recited in claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, the claim limitation “the different scout regions” in line 3 is indefinite because it is unclear if these different scout regions are related to the first and second region that is recited in claim 15.
Regarding 19, the claim recitation “scout scan” is indefinite because it is unclear which scout scan the claim is referring to since claim 15 limits two scout scans.
Claims 3-4 and 18 are rejected as they depend from rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2021/0161422; hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses automatic image plane planning and following for MIR using AI. Chen shows a MRI system (see abstract) comprising: a MR scanner configured by setting of controls to perform scout scans of a first region of a patient (see fig. 2 and 4; par. [0039]) and a second region of the patient (see par. [0039]), the scout scans providing first scan data of the first region (see 402 in fig. 4; par. [0039])) and second scan data of the second region (see 414 in fig. 4; par. [0039])); and a processor (see 304 in fig. 3) configured to determine a location of a diagnostic regions from the scout scans of the first region and second region (as best understood of the indefinite limitation, see par. [0039]); the MR scanner configured to perform a scan of the diagnostic region based on the determined location (see abstract; par. [0039] and fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Chen shows a patient support for the patient (see fig. 2), the patient support is movable relative to the MR scanner (see par. [0030]), wherein the processor is configured to perform the scout scan and/or the scan of the diagnostic region with controlled movement of the patient support (see par. [0030]).
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.
Claims 1, 5, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greiser et al. (US 2023/0255506; hereinafter Greiser), in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0161422; hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 1, Greiser discloses a magnetic resonance imaging. Greiser shows a method of localizing a target for magnetic resonance (MR) scanning (see abstract; par. [0022]), the method comprising: estimating an initial position of the target relative to a magnetic resonance scanner from first data (see par. [0022], [0023]), the target comprising an object in a patient (see fig. 1), and the first data comprises pre-scan information (see par. [0022], [0023]; fig. 2, 5, 8)); determining based on the initial position, scout scans to be performed (see par. [0022], [0118]); performing a first scout scan of a first region (see abstract, par. [0008], [0009], [0019], [0070], [0080], [0071], [0072]); fig. 2, 5 and 8), the region is based on the initial position (see abstract, par. [0008], [0009], [0024], [0070], [0071], [0072]); fig. 2, 5 and 8); determining a subsequent position of the target relative to the magnetic resonance scanner from the scout scan (see abstract, par. [0008], [0009], [0019], [0070], [0080], [0071], [0072]); fig. 2, 5 and 8); and diagnostically imaging the target with the magnetic resonance scanner, the imaging configured by the subsequent position of the target (see par. [0031], [0033], [0035], [0086], [0087]).
But, Greiser fails to explicitly state performing first and second scout scans of multiple regions (see 410, performing second scout scan for a second region of one or more regions, wherein a support or the patient is moved to allow scanning of the second region; and determining the subsequent position from the first and second scout scan.
Chen discloses automatic image plane planning and following for MIR using AI. Chen teaches performing first (see 402 in fig. 4) and second scout scans (see 414 in fig. 4) of multiple regions (see par. [0039]), performing second scout scan for a second region of one or more regions (see fig. 4 and par. [0039]), wherein the patient is moved to allow scanning of the second region (see par. [0007], [0036], [0041]; and determining the subsequent position of the target from the first and second scout scan (see par. [0039], and fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of performing first and second scout scans of multiple regions (see 410, performing second scout scan for a second region of one or more regions, wherein a support or the patient is moved to allow scanning of the second region; and determining the subsequent position from the first and second scout scans in the invention of Greiser, as taught by Chen, to be able to automatically acquire and adjust planned image planes to compensate for changes in a post of a region of interest throughout an entire scanning process to provide quality image. The examiner notes that upon incorporating the teaching of Chen into the invention of Greiser would provide determining the subsequent position of the target relative to the MRI scanner from the first and second scout scan.
Regarding claim 5, Greiser and Chen discloses the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Greiser shows wherein estimating comprises estimating from the pre-scan information comprising measurements from an exterior of the patient, and/or a previously acquired representation of an interior of the patient (see par. [0022], [0023], [0024], [0068]).
Regarding claim 10, Greiser and Chen disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore as best understood of the indefinite claim limitation, Chen shows wherein performing and determining are interleaved so that one or more of the different regions are selected by a deep reinforcement learning AI based on previous ones of the scout scans (see fig. 4, par. [0039], [0044]).
Regarding claim 11, Greiser and Chen disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore as best understood of the indefinite claim limitation, Chen teaches the deep reinforcement learning AI selects a plan (see par. [0039]), and each plan indicates how to select a next of the different regions (see fig. 4 and par. [0039]).
Regarding claim 12, Greiser and Chen discloses the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Greiser shows wherein diagnostically imaging comprises generating settings for radio frequency subsystem and a gradient subsystem of the magnetic resonance scanner to scan the subsequent location (see par. [0060]).
Regarding claim 13, Greiser and Chen discloses the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Greiser shows wherein at least one of the scout scans is performed after beginning the diagnostically imaging (see par. [0022], [0023]), and further comprising adjusting for motion based on scan data of the at least one of the scout scans performed after beginning the diagnostically imaging (see par. [0115]), and Chen also teaches adjusting for motion based on scan data of the at least one of the scout scans performed after beginning the diagnostically imaging (see par. [0007], [0036], [0041]).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greiser et al. (US 2023/0255506; hereinafter Greiser), in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0161422; hereinafter Chen) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Poole et al. (US 2019/0353726; hereinafter Poole).
Regarding claims 2-3, Greiser and Chen disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Greiser teaches wherein the magnetic resonance scanner comprises homogeneous main magnetic field (see par. [0058]) with a field of view with a diameter of volume (see abstract, par. [0008], [0009], [0019], [0070], [0080], [0071], [0072])), wherein the scout scan is of the patient using the field of view (see abstract, par. [0008], [0009], [0019], [0070], [0080], [0071], [0072]), and Chen teaches scout scans of different regions using FOV (see par. [0039]), but fails to explicitly state that the FOV with a diameter of spherical homogenous volume is less than 30 cm.
Poole discloses a MRI system. Poole teaches FOV with a diameter of spherical homogenous volume is less than 30 cm (see par. [0011], [0085])
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of FOV with a diameter of spherical homogenous volume is less than 30 cm in the invention of Greiser and Chen, as taught by Poole, to be able provide image with enhanced image quality and higher spatial resolution.
Regarding claim 4, combined invention of Greiser, Chen and Poole disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to exilically state the diameter is less than 10 cm, but it would have obvious and routine to one of ordinary kill in the art to have provide the diameter to be less than 10 cm since it has been held that providing optimum range is routine to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greiser et al. (US 2023/0255506; hereinafter Greiser), in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0161422; hereinafter Chen) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Jang et al. (US 2023/0237653; hereinafter Jang).
Regarding claim 6, Greiser and Chen disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Chen teaches artificial intelligence (see fig. 4), but fail to explicitly state wherein estimating comprises estimating by an artificial intelligence in response to input of the pre-scan information.
Jang discloses an imaging system. Jang teaches wherein estimating comprises estimating by an artificial intelligence in response to input of the pre-scan information (see par. [0046], [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of estimating by an artificial intelligence in response to input of the pre-scan information in the invention of Greiser and Chen, as taught by Jang, to provide a faster processing of information to prove a more accurate result.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greiser et al. (US 2023/0255506; hereinafter Greiser), in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0161422; hereinafter Chen) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Damadian et al. (US 10,679,365; hereinafter Damadian).
Regarding claim 7, Greiser and Chen disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Greiser shows that the patient table can be moved (see par. [0059]), but fail to explicitly state mechanically moving the patient relative to the magnetic resonance scanner scanning different regions.
Damadian discloses an imaging system. Damadian teaches mechanically moving the patient relative to the magnetic resonance scanner scanning different regions (see abstract and fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of mechanically moving the patient relative to the magnetic resonance scanner scanning different regions in the invention Greiser and Chen, as taught by Damadian, to be automatically move the patient without needing user intervention.
Regarding claim 14, Greiser and Chen disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Greiser shows that the patient table can be moved (see par. [0059]), but fail to explicitly state adjusting a patient of position relative to the MRI scanner based on the subsequent.
Damadian discloses an imaging system. Damadian teaches adjusting a patient of position relative to the MRI scanner based on subsequent position (see abstract and fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of adjusting a patient of position relative to the MRI scanner based on the subsequent. in the invention Greiser and Chen, as taught by Damadian, to be automatically move the patient without needing user intervention and provide accurate image by correcting and account for patient inadvertent movement.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greiser et al. (US 2023/0255506; hereinafter Greiser), in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0161422; hereinafter Chen) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alhamud et al. (US 2016/0047876; hereinafter Alhamud).
Regarding claim 8, Greiser and Chen disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore Greiser teaches wherein the magnetic resonance scanner comprises homogeneous main magnetic field (see par. [0058]) with field of a homogenous scanning volume and scanning region (see abstract, par. [0008], [0009], [0019], [0070], [0080], [0071], [0072])), but fails to explicitly state wherein performing comprises adjusting a central frequency.
Alhamud discloses MRI system. Alhamud teaches adjusting a central frequency of MRI system (see par. [0018], [0049]).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of adjusting central frequency in the invention of Greiser and Chen, as taught by Alhamud, to be able to correct the main magnetic field inhomogeneity. The examiner notes that upon modifying the invention of Greiser and Chen to incorporate the teaching of Alhamud would provide with the different regions of the scout scans are outside of a homogenous scanning volume.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greiser et al. (US 2023/0255506; hereinafter Greiser), in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0161422; hereinafter Chen) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vik et al. (US 2012/0230563; hereinafter Vik).
Regarding claim 9, Greiser and Chen disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fail to explicitly state determining comprises aggregating scout scan data from first and second scout scans and estimating the subsequent position from the aggregated scout scan data.
Vik discloses scan planning. Vik teaches aggregating scout scan data from the scout scans and estimating the subsequent position from the aggregated scout scan data from first and second scout scans (see par. [0034], [0075], [0079]; fig. 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of aggregating scout scan data from the first and second scout scan and estimating the subsequent position from the aggregated scout scan data in the invention of Greiser and Chen, as taught by Vik, to be able to provide enhanced quality image by generating a FOV location adjustment.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2021/0161422; hereinafter Chen), in view of Henry et al. (US 2023/0190105; hereinafter Henry).
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses the invention substantially as described in the 102 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state different contact weighting for scout images.
Henry discloses MR imaging system. Henry teaches state different contact weighting for images (see par. [0027], [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of state different contact weighting for scout images in the invention of Chen, as taught by Henry, to be able to differentiate the different regions using diffusion weighting scout images.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2021/0161422; hereinafter Chen), in view of Greiser et al. (US 2023/0255506; hereinafter Greiser)
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses the invention substantially as described in the 102 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state the processor configured to estimate an initial location of the diagnostic region from a previous whole body scan, scan regions is established based on the initial location.
Greiser teaches wherein the processor is configured to estimate an initial location of the diagnostic region from a previous whole-body scan and scan region is established based on the initial location ((see par. [0022], [0023], fig. 2, 5 and 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of an initial location of the diagnostic region from a previous whole body scan, scan region is established based on the initial location in the invention of Chen, as taught by Greiser, to provide additional scans to accurately compensate patient motion. The examiner notes that upon incorporating the teaching of Greiser into the invention of Chen would provide scan regions is established based on the initial location.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2021/0161422; hereinafter Chen), in view of Jang et al. (US 2023/0237653; hereinafter Jang).
Regarding claim 19, Chen discloses the invention substantially as described in the 102 rejection above, furthermore Chen teaches artificial intelligence (see fig. 4; par. [0039]) but fails the processor is configured to scout scan and/or determine the location with an artificial intelligence previously trained to extrapolate information outside of a current field of view
Jang discloses an imaging system. Jang teaches the processor is configured to scout scan and/or determine the location with an artificial intelligence previously trained to extrapolate information outside of a current field of view (see par. [0046], [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of the processor is configured to scout scan and/or determine the location with an artificial intelligence previously trained to extrapolate information outside of a current field of view in the invention of Chen, as taught by Jang, to provide a faster processing of information to prove a more accurate result.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2021/0161422; hereinafter Chen), in view of Poole et al. (US 2019/0353726; hereinafter Poole).
Regarding claim 20, Chen discloses an automatic imaging plane planning and following for MRI using AI. Chen shows a method for localizing a target for magnetic resonance (MR) scanning (see abstract), performing, by a MRI (see fig. 2), a first scout scan of a first region of a patient (see fig. 4 and par. [0039]); performing, by the MRI, a second scout of a second region of the patient (see fig. 4 and par. [0039]), the MRI having a FOV with a diameter such that first region is outside a field of view of the second region (see fig. 4 and par. [0039]); determining, by a machine-learning model implemented by a processor (see fig. 3 and 4), a position of the target relative to the MR system from the first scout scan and second scout scan (see fig. 4 and par. [0039]), and imaging the target with the MRI, the imaging configured by the position of the target (see abstract; par. [0039] and fig. 4).
But, Chen fails to explicitly state that the diameter of the field of view is less than of 30 cm or less such that each of the different regions are outside the field of view of others of the different regions.
Poole discloses a MRI system. Poole teaches FOV with a diameter of spherical homogenous volume is less than 30 cm (see par. [0011], [0085])
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of FOV with a diameter of spherical homogenous volume is less than 30 cm in the invention of Chen, as taught by Poole, to be able provide image with enhanced image quality and higher spatial resolution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/23/2025 with respect to claims 1, 9, 10-11, 15 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any rejection applied in the prior Office action of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571)270-0552. 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.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797