Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same reference combination applied in the prior rejection of record.
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, 3-4, 7, 9-10, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boulant (US 2013/0144156), in view of Feiweier (US 2022/0187401).
Regarding claim 1, Boulant teaches a computer-implemented method for calculating at least one operating parameter of a magnetic resonance sequence, the method comprising:
providing at least one initial sequence parameter of a dynamic radio-frequency (RF) transmit pulse of the magnetic resonance sequence [¶0021, wherein the reference pulse is a composite pulse made up of a number of smaller pulses. See also rest of reference.], wherein the at least one initial sequence parameter of the dynamic RF transmit pulse comprises a maximum amplitude [¶0035. See peak power. See also rest of reference.];
modeling at least one test RF transmit pulse by adapting the at least one initial sequence parameter of the dynamic RF transmit pulse to a rectangular shape [See square pulses. See also rest of reference.], wherein the maximum amplitude of the at least one initial sequence parameter corresponds to a maximum height of the rectangular shape [¶0035 and ¶0067. See peak power. See also rest of reference.];
determining the at least one operating parameter of the magnetic resonance sequence using the at least one test RF transmit pulse having the rectangular shape, wherein the at least one operating parameter comprises a power requirement applicable to a magnetic resonance apparatus during operation of the magnetic resonance sequence and/or a specific absorption rate (SAR) to which a patient is exposed during operation of the magnetic resonance sequence [¶0035 and ¶0067. See peak power. See also rest of reference.];
comparing the at least one operating parameter with at least one constraint of the power requirement and/or the SAR [¶0035 and ¶0067. See peak power. See also rest of reference.];
determining at least one adapted sequence parameter by adapting the at least one initial sequence parameter when the at least one operating parameter does not comply with the at least one constraint of the power requirement and/or the SAR [¶0035 and ¶0067. See peak power. See also rest of reference.];
determining at least one measurement RF transmit pulse, wherein the at least one measurement RF transmit pulse is a dynamic pulse [¶0022, wherein the elementary pulses of the composite pulse are replaced with sinc pulses. See slice-selective RF pulse. See ¶0074 and Fig. 3A, wherein the sinc pulse has a dynamic amplitude. See also rest of reference.], and wherein the determining of the at least one measurement RF transmit pulse uses the at least one adapted initial sequence parameter when the at least one operating parameter does not comply with the at least one constraint of the power requirement and/or the SAR [¶0035 and ¶0067. See peak power. See also rest of reference.]; and
transmitting the at least one RF transmit pulse during a magnetic resonance measurement [¶0023. See also rest of reference.].
However, Boulant is silent in teaching herein the determining of the at least one measurement RF transmit pulse uses the at least one initial sequence parameter when the at least one operating parameter complies with the at least one constraint of the power requirement and/or the SAR.
Feiweier teaches determining at least one measurement RF transmit pulse, wherein the at least one measurement RF transmit pulse is a dynamic pulse [Fig. 2, see combined pulse CP. See also rest of reference which teaches combined RF pulse.], wherein the determining of the at least one measurement RF transmit pulse uses the at least one initial sequence parameter when the at least one operating parameter complies with the at least one constraint of the power requirement and/or the SAR [Fig. 3 and corresponding description. The first test offset is used to determine if the power exceeds the threshold. If not, the first test offset is used. See also rest of reference.], and wherein the determining of the at least one measurement RF transmit pulse uses the at least one adapted initial sequence parameter when the at least one operating parameter does not comply with the at least one constraint of the power requirement and/or the SAR [Fig. 3 and corresponding description. If the first test offset exceeds the threshold, the time offset is increased. 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 Boulant and Feiweier because both references are in the field of determining RF pulse parameters in MRI and because Feiweier teaches it is known in the art to use initially selected RF pulse parameters if thresholds are not violated, which will reduce the computational requirements than determining optimal parameters with multiple variables [Feiweier – Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 3, Boulant and Feiweier teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant and Feiweier further teach wherein the at least one initial sequence parameter comprises a pulse duration that corresponds to a width of the rectangular shape [Boulant - ¶0035, ¶0067. Feiweier - See duration T. See also rest of references.].
Regarding claim 4, Boulant and Feiweier teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant and Feiweier further teach wherein the pulse duration is a maximum pulse duration, and wherein the width of the rectangular shape is a maximum width of the rectangular shape [Boulant - ¶0035, ¶0067. Feiweier - See duration T. See also rest of references.].
Regarding claim 7, Boulant and Feiweier teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant and Feiweier further teach wherein the at least one operating parameter comprises the power requirement applicable to the magnetic resonance apparatus during operation of the magnetic resonance sequence [Boulant - ¶0035, ¶0067. Feiweier - Fig. 2, see maximum value M. Fig. 3, see RFmax. ¶0026 discloses that the maximum amplitude limit is a hardware limit of the MRI apparatus. See also rest of references.].
Regarding claim 9, Boulant and Feiweier teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant and Feiweier further teach wherein the at least one operating parameter comprises the SAR to which the patient is exposed during operation of the magnetic resonance sequence [Boulant - ¶0035, ¶0067. Feiweier - ¶0027. See also rest of references.].
Regarding claim 10, Boulant and Feiweier teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant and Feiweier further teach further comprising: providing the at least one constraint for the at least one operating parameter [Boulant - ¶0035, ¶0067. Feiweier - Fig. 2, see maximum value M. Fig. 3, see RFmax. ¶0026 discloses that the maximum amplitude limit is a hardware limit of the MRI apparatus. See also rest of references.].
Regarding claim 13, Boulant and Feiweier teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant further teaches wherein the at least one measurement RF transmit pulse is a pTx pulse [¶0008, ¶0014, ¶0037, ¶0100, ¶0120. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 14, Boulant and Feiweier teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant and Feiweier further teach wherein the at least one adapted sequence parameter comprises the at least one constraint for determining the at least one measurement RF transmit pulse [Boulant - ¶0035, ¶0067, ¶0069-0072. Feiweier - Fig. 2, wherein the sum SP is at the maximum value threshold M. See also rest of references.].
Regarding claim 15, Boulant and Feiweier teach the limitations of claim 14, which this claim depends from.
Boulant and Feiweier further teach wherein the at least one constraint for determining the at least one measurement RF transmit pulse comprises a maximum pulse duration [Boulant - ¶0035, ¶0067, ¶0069-0072. Feiweier - ¶0056, wherein the maximum duration threshold would be when the combined pulse does not overlap. See also rest of references.].
Regarding claim 16, Boulant and Feiweier teach the limitations of claim 14, which this claim depends from.
Boulant and Feiweier further teach herein the at least one constraint for determining the at least one measurement RF transmit pulse comprises the maximum amplitude [Boulant - ¶0035, ¶0067, ¶0069-0072. Feiweier – Fig. 2, first test offset with no offset. ¶0111, Furthermore, the maximum RF-amplitude RFmax is e.g. given by the properties of the machine or by other boundaries. It may be the absolute value of the maximum RF-amplitude of the initial RF-pulses P1, P2, however, in this example it is higher.. Fig. 2, see maximum value M. Fig. 3, see RFmax. ¶0026 discloses that the maximum amplitude limit is a hardware limit of the MRI apparatus. See also rest of references.].
Regarding claim 17, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to this claim. Claim 17 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to this claim. Claim 18 is merely the computer program product version of method claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Boulant, in view of Feiweier, and in further view of Grodzki (US 2015/0097566).
Regarding claim 8, Boulant and Feiweier teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Boulant and Feiweier further teaches wherein the power requirement is applicable to hardware limitations of the magnetic resonance apparatus [Boulant - ¶0067. Feiweier - ¶0111. See also rest of references.].
Boulant and Feiweier are silent in teaching a RF amplifier.
Grodzki, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the power requirement is applicable to a RF amplifier of the magnetic resonance apparatus [¶0028, ¶0045-0047, ¶0052, ¶0070. 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 Boulant and Feiweier with the teachings of Grodzki because all references are in the field of MRI sequences and because Grodzki teaches it is also known in the art to evaluate power of the RF amplifier to comply with hardware limits [Grodzki - ¶0028, ¶0045-0047, ¶0052, ¶0070. See also rest of reference.].
Conclusion
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