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
Certain applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 regarding the previous prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that Rinck does not teach "automatically determining, via the processor, a coverage of the scan to include the anatomic landmark of interest and to match the extents of the anatomic landmark of interest based on the scan protocol and the geometry plan including the extents of the anatomic landmark of interest" as recited in the independent claims. Applicant argues that the Examiner in a previous interview cited further paragraphs (e.g., paragraphs 46 and 59) of Rinck disclosing having a field of view match a tooth. Applicant notes for the purposes of MRI, scan coverage and field of view are different. Coverage refers to an area and depth (i.e., overall volume) of the tissue to be imaged, while field of view is the specific area (i.e., specific rectangular area) within the coverage that is captured and processed to generate the image. In other words, the scan coverage determines the total extent of tissue being scanned, and the field of view determines how region is framed and displayed. Applicant notes that the Examiner failed to address this argument. In addition, in the latest interview, the Examiner cited paragraph 159 of Rinck, which discloses tailoring an imaging volume to match the organ structure. First, an imaging volume is not the same as spatial coverage and indeed only one component thereof as noted in paragraph 50 of Rinck. Second, the term "matching" as used in Rinck means corresponding or aligning and has nothing to do with matching (i.e., being equal to) an extent. Thus, Rinck is still completely silent with regard to determining a coverage that matches the extents of the anatomic landmark. Paul fails to obviate these deficiencies.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Applicant states “Rinck discloses determining spatial coverage of an organ in an iterative manner by repeating localizer scans to narrow the spatial coverage” (Page 2 of arguments). Rinck discloses that it is an imaging volume, which would include both the rectangular area and depth and Rinck also discloses 3D measurement data can be obtained [¶0046]. Therefore, scan coverage is disclosed by Rinck.
Rinck also discloses [¶0159]:
In an exemplary embodiment, the magnetic resonance imaging system comprises a dedicated scanner configured to acquire magnetic resonance image data of a specific organ structure of the patient. For example, the magnetic resonance imaging device may be configured to perform a magnetic resonance measurement of an eye region, a teeth region and/or a jaw region of the patient. Thus, an imaging volume of the magnetic resonance imaging device may be tailored to match a diagnostically relevant organ structure, such as an eye, both eyes, a tooth, several teeth, a jaw, a dental arch or both dental arches of the patient.
Rinck then goes on to state matching the extents of the scan coverage to boundary of the organ structure [See Fig. 4]. Rinck also states “If the organ structure 51 is enclosed within the second localizer image data, the boundary box 52b may be further refined to reduce the volume of diagnostically irrelevant tissue surrounding the organ structure 51 to determine the field of view 50c of the magnetic resonance measurement in step Ic.” [¶0200]. Rinck also discloses 3D measurement data can be obtained [¶0046]. Therefore, it is believed by the examiner that Rinck teaches determining a coverage that matches the extents of the anatomic landmark.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of claim 1 on pages 4-5 of the arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same reference combination used in the current prior art rejection. Please see below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 claim 1, the claim includes the limitations “obtaining, at the processor, limits on adjustments of scan time and adjustments of one or more image quality parameters for the scan protocol” and “generating, via the processor, an updated scan protocol by automatically adjusting one or more parameters of the scan protocol based on the scan protocol, the limits on adjustments, and the coverage of the scan.” It is not clear if “the limits on adjustments” refers to one of adjustments of scan time, adjustments of one or more image quality parameters, or both adjustments of scan time and adjustments of one or more image quality parameters. Claims 2-9 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above. Claims 11-18 and 20 are rejected for depending on either claim 10 or 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-12, 16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinck (US 2021/0158563), in view of Kim (US 2017/0185280).
Regarding claim 1, Rinck teaches a computer-implemented method for performing a scan of a subject utilizing a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system, comprising:
receiving, at a processor, a selection of a scan protocol from among a plurality of scan protocols for the scan of the subject with the MRI system [Fig. 5, See S4. See also rest of reference.];
obtaining, at the processor, localizer images including an anatomic landmark of interest of the subject acquired with the MRI system [Fig. 5, See S3. See also rest of reference.];
automatically detecting, via the processor, the anatomic landmark of interest in the localizer images and determining a geometry plan of the scan of the anatomic landmark of interest including extents of the anatomic landmark of interest of the subject based on the localizer images [See landmarks. See spatial coverage. See also rest of reference.];
automatically determining, via the processor, a coverage of the scan to include the anatomic landmark of interest and to match the extents of the anatomic landmark of interest based on the scan protocol and the geometry plan including the extents of the anatomic landmark of interest [See landmarks. See spatial coverage. Fig. 5, steps S5-S6. ¶0114, wherein a tooth or eye is used as the landmark. ¶0159, an imaging volume of the magnetic resonance imaging device may be tailored to match a diagnostically relevant organ structure, such as an eye, both eyes, a tooth, several teeth, a jaw, a dental arch or both dental arches of the patient. ¶0046, wherein 3D data is acquired. ¶0200, states “If the organ structure 51 is enclosed within the second localizer image data, the boundary box 52b may be further refined to reduce the volume of diagnostically irrelevant tissue surrounding the organ structure 51 to determine the field of view 50c of the magnetic resonance measurement in step Ic.” See also rest of reference.];
obtaining, at the processor, limits of scan time and one or more image quality parameters for the scan protocol [¶0154, wherein limits/thresholds of acceptable quality are disclosed. ¶0088, ¶0194 wherein scan time allocations are also limited. See also rest of reference.]; and
generating, via the processor, an updated scan protocol by automatically adjusting one or more parameters of the scan protocol based on the scan protocol, the limits on scan time and one or more image quality parameters, and the coverage of the scan [¶0154, wherein adjustments to parameters are determined if quality is not met. ¶0088, ¶0194 wherein the limits on scan time allocation are in effect. See also rest of reference.].
However, Rinck is silent in teaching limits on adjustments of scan time and adjustments of one or more image quality parameters for the scan protocol (emphasis added).
Kim, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches limits on adjustments of scan time and adjustments of one or more image quality parameters for the scan protocol [¶0017 and ¶0022-0024, wherein first parameter is edited based on based on user selection and the first parameter is limited to be edited within a specific range. ¶0012, wherein the parameter can be image contrast/resolution. ¶0016, wherein plurality of parameters are edited. ¶0064, wherein time parameters can be edited, such as TR. Fig. 6, wherein different parameters are shown. Fig. 7, wherein a parameter is edited to a specific range. 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 Rinck and Kim because both references are in the field of MRI and because Rinck teaches that that there are requirements for available time allocation and Paul teaches it is known in the art that imaging parameters are limited in there adjustment to acquire a desired image [Kim - ¶0208. See also rest of reference.]. Further, it is obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art to limit the amount of adjustment of scan time and image quality because it would be obvious to not allow a user to select values to acquire a undesirably low-quality image because the image would not be clear or a perform an extremely long scan time, which would increase cost of operation and increase patient discomfort. Also, it would have been obvious to try using the time allocation for the magnetic resonance measurement of Rinck as an editable parameter in Kim [Kim - ¶0064, wherein time parameters can be edited.].
Regarding claim 2, Rinck and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Rinck further teaches further comprising initiating, via the processor, the scan of the subject utilizing the updated scan protocol [¶0154, wherein adjustments to parameters are determined if quality is not met and rescans are performed. ¶0088, ¶0194 wherein the limits on scan time allocation are in effect. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Rinck and Paul teach the limitations of claim 2, which this claim depends from.
Rinck is silent in teaching wherein the updated scan protocol maintains an image quality of an acquired image obtained from the scan relative to the scan protocol, wherein the limits on adjustments comprise ranges that constrain both the scan time and the one or more image parameters to maintain the image quality of the acquired image.
Kim further teaches wherein the updated scan protocol maintains an image quality of an acquired image obtained from the scan relative to the scan protocol, wherein the limits on adjustments comprise ranges that constrain both the scan time and the one or more image parameters to maintain the image quality of the acquired image [¶0017 and ¶0022-0024, wherein first parameter is edited based on based on user selection and the first parameter is limited to be edited within a specific range. ¶0012, wherein the parameter can be image contrast/resolution. ¶0016, wherein plurality of parameters are edited. ¶0064, wherein time parameters can be edited, such as TR. Fig. 6, wherein different parameters are shown. Fig. 7, wherein a parameter is edited to a specific range. 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 Rinck and Kim because both references are in the field of MRI and because Rinck teaches that that there are requirements for available time allocation and Paul teaches it is known in the art that imaging parameters are limited in there adjustment to acquire a desired image [Kim - ¶0208. See also rest of reference.]. Further, it is obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art to limit the amount of adjustment of scan time and image quality because it would be obvious to not allow a user to select values to acquire a undesirably low-quality image because the image would not be clear or a perform an extremely long scan time, which would increase cost of operation and increase patient discomfort. Also, it would have been obvious to try using the time allocation for the magnetic resonance measurement of Rinck as an editable parameter in Kim [Kim - ¶0064, wherein time parameters can be edited.].
Regarding claim 7, Rinck and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Rinck further teaches wherein the limits apply to use of all MRI systems at a site having one or more MRI systems including the MRI system [There is at least the one MRI system where the limits apply (i.e. the MRI system in Fig. 1). Therefore, the limits disclosed apply to at least that MRI system. See also rest of reference.] or to use of all MRI systems across a network having multiple MRI systems across multiple sites including the MRI system.
Rinck is silent in teaching limits of adjustments.
Kim further teaches limits of adjustments [¶0017 and ¶0022-0024, wherein first parameter is edited based on based on user selection and the first parameter is limited to be edited within a specific range. ¶0012, wherein the parameter can be image contrast/resolution. ¶0016, wherein plurality of parameters are edited. ¶0064, wherein time parameters can be edited, such as TR. Fig. 6, wherein different parameters are shown. Fig. 7, wherein a parameter is edited to a specific range. See also rest of reference.]. Kim further teaches wherein the limits on adjustments apply to use of all MRI systems at a site having one or more MRI systems including the MRI system [¶0017 and ¶0022-0024, wherein first parameter is edited based on based on user selection and the first parameter is limited to be edited within a specific range. ¶0012, wherein the parameter can be image contrast/resolution. ¶0016, wherein plurality of parameters are edited. ¶0064, wherein time parameters can be edited, such as TR. Fig. 6, wherein different parameters are shown. Fig. 7, wherein a parameter is edited to a specific range. See also rest of reference.] or to use of all MRI systems across a network having multiple MRI systems across multiple sites including the MRI system [¶0107. 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 Rinck and Kim because both references are in the field of MRI and because Rinck teaches that that there are requirements for available time allocation and Paul teaches it is known in the art that imaging parameters are limited in there adjustment to acquire a desired image [Kim - ¶0208. See also rest of reference.]. Further, it is obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art to limit the amount of adjustment of scan time and image quality because it would be obvious to not allow a user to select values to acquire a undesirably low-quality image because the image would not be clear or a perform an extremely long scan time, which would increase cost of operation and increase patient discomfort. Also, it would have been obvious to try using the time allocation for the magnetic resonance measurement of Rinck as an editable parameter in Kim [Kim - ¶0064, wherein time parameters can be edited.].
Regarding claim 9, Rinck and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Rinck is silent in teaching wherein the one or more adjusted parameters comprise one or more of matrix size, echo train length, an acceleration factor for parallel imaging, repetition time, readout bandwidth, echo time, number of averages, phase over-sampling factor, flip angles, heart rate, respiratory rate, post-processing filter parameters, slice over-sampling factor number of slices, slice gap, slice thickness, diffusion B-values, number of averages for each B-value, inversion times, and fast imaging acceleration for compressed sensing.
Kim teaches wherein the one or more adjusted parameters comprise one or more of matrix size, echo train length, an acceleration factor for parallel imaging, repetition time, readout bandwidth, echo time, number of averages, phase over-sampling factor, flip angles, heart rate, respiratory rate, post-processing filter parameters, slice over-sampling factor number of slices, slice gap, slice thickness, diffusion B-values, number of averages for each B-value, inversion times, and fast imaging acceleration for compressed sensing [¶0064, wherein time parameters can be edited, such as TR. ¶0115. 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 Rinck and Kim because both references are in the field of MRI and because Rinck teaches that that there are requirements for available time allocation and Paul teaches it is known in the art that imaging parameters are limited in there adjustment to acquire a desired image [Kim - ¶0208. See also rest of reference.]. Further, it is obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art to limit the amount of adjustment of scan time and image quality because it would be obvious to not allow a user to select values to acquire a undesirably low-quality image because the image would not be clear or a perform an extremely long scan time, which would increase cost of operation and increase patient discomfort. Also, it would have been obvious to try using the time allocation for the magnetic resonance measurement of Rinck as an editable parameter in Kim [Kim - ¶0064, wherein time parameters can be edited.].
Regarding claim 10, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to this claim. Claim 10 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the same reasons for rejection as claim 2 also apply to this claim. Claim 11 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, the same reasons for rejection as claim 3 also apply to this claim. Claim 12 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, the same reasons for rejection as claim 7 also apply to this claim. Claim 16 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, the same reasons for rejection as claim 9 also apply to this claim. Claim 18 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to this claim. Claim 19 is merely the non-transitory computer-readable medium version of method claim 1
Claims 4-5, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Rinck, in view of previously cited Kim, and in further view of Grodzki (EP 3828578 A1. English translation provided by Espacenet and attached to previous office action.).
Regarding claim 4, Rinck and Kim teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Rinck and Kim are silent in teaching wherein maintaining the image quality comprises maintaining a contrast-to-noise ratio in the acquired image.
Grodzki further teaches wherein maintaining the image quality comprises maintaining a contrast-to-noise ratio in the acquired image [¶0032-0033. 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 Rinck and Kim with the teachings of Grodzki because all references are in the field of adjusting MR pulse sequences and because Grodzki teaches it is known in the art to restrict image quality parameters to desired values [Grodzki - ¶0032-0033], similar to Kim [See range of parameters].
Regarding claim 5, Rinck, Kim, and Grodzki teach the limitations of claim 4, which this claim depends from.
Rinck and Grodzki both further teach wherein the one or more adjusted parameters comprise a signal-to-noise ratio [Rinck – See signal-to-noise ratio. Grodzki - ¶0032-0033. See also rest of references.].
Regarding claim 13, the same reasons for rejection as claim 4 also apply to this claim. Claim 13 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, the same reasons for rejection as claim 5 also apply to this claim. Claim 14 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, Rinck and Kim teach the limitations of claim 19, which this claim depends from.
Rinck further teaches further wherein the processor-executable code, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to initiate the scan of the subject utilizing the updated scan protocol [¶0154, wherein adjustments to parameters are determined if quality is not met and rescans are performed. ¶0088, ¶0194 wherein the limits on scan time allocation are in effect. See also rest of reference.].
However, Rinck and Kim are silent in teaching wherein the updated scan protocol maintains a contrast-to-noise ratio of an acquired image obtained from the scan relative to the scan protocol.
Grodzki, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the updated scan protocol maintains a contrast-to-noise ratio of an acquired image obtained from the scan relative to the scan protocol [¶0032-0033. 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 Rinck and Kim with the teachings of Grodzki because all references are in the field of adjusting MR pulse sequences and because Grodzki teaches it is known in the art to restrict image quality parameters to desired values [Grodzki - ¶0032-0033], similar to Kim [See range of parameters].
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Rinck, in view of previously cited Kim, in further view of previously cited Grodzki, in furthest view of Li (CN 107638179 A. English translation provided by Espacenet and attached to previous office action.).
Regarding claim 6, Rinck, Kim, and Grodzki teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Grodzki further teaches wherein maintaining the image quality comprises maintaining a contrast-to-noise ratio in the acquired image [¶0032-0033. See also rest of reference.].
Rinck, Kim, and Grodzki are both silent in teaching wherein maintaining the image quality comprises maintaining both a signal-to-noise ratio and a contrast in the acquired image.
Li, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein maintaining the image quality comprises maintaining both a signal-to-noise ratio and a contrast-to-noise ratio in the acquired image [¶0004. 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 Rinck, Kim, Grodzki, and Li because all the references are in the field of parameterizing MR pulse sequences and because Li teaches it is known in the art that an MR parameter (i.e. flip angle) can be adjusted while maintaining contrast and signal-to-noise ratios, while reducing potentially harmful SAR [Li - ¶0004. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 15, the same reasons for rejection as claim 6 also apply to this claim. Claim 15 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 6.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Rinck, in view of previously cited Kim, in further view of Wen (US 2022/0365159).
Regarding claim 8, Rinck and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Kim further teaches the limits on adjustments [¶0017 and ¶0022-0024, wherein first parameter is edited based on based on user selection and the first parameter is limited to be edited within a specific range. Fig. 6, wherein different parameters are shown. Fig. 7, wherein a parameter is edited to a specific range. See also rest of reference.].
However, Rinck and Kim are silent in teaching wherein the limits on adjustments are based on a condition of the subject.
Wen, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the limits on adjustments are based on a condition of the subject [¶0175. 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 Rinck and Kim with the teachings of Wen because all references are in the field of adjusting MR pulse sequences and Wen teaches it is known in the art that total power is a settable parameter and thresholds of total power are based on attributes of the patient (such as age, gender, weight, height, body thickness, body width, health conditions) [Wen - ¶0175. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 17, the same reasons for rejection as claim 8 also apply to this claim. Claim 17 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 8.
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