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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: two commas after the term “the second non-invasive measurement”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for acquiring k-space sampling patterns in MRI, does not reasonably provide enablement for sampling patterns in general (i.e. outside the field of k-space data and MRI). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Claim 1 is broad enough to cover sampling patterns all fields. However, the specification teaches that the sampling patterns are limited to k-space sampling in MRI. Taking these factors into account, undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of claim 1. The same arguments apply to independent claims 10 and 20.
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 5-8 and 14-17 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 5, the last limitation includes “dynamically computing or selecting the subsequent sample or line in k-space, parameters associated with a radio-frequency (RF) pulse sequence, or both for acquiring the subsequent sample or line in k-space and providing a given second instruction in the one or more second instructions to the measurement device to acquire the subsequent sample or line in k-space during the second non-invasive measurement, wherein the given second instruction comprises the computed or selected parameters” and is considered indefinite. First, it is unclear if “computed or selected parameters” refers to “dynamically computing or selecting”. Second, the first emphasized portion “dynamically computing or selecting the subsequent sample or line in k-space, parameters associated with a radio-frequency (RF) pulse sequence, or both for acquiring the subsequent sample or line in k-space” states that either “the subsequent sample or line in k-space” or “parameters associated with a radio-frequency (RF) pulse sequence” can be dynamically computed or selected. However, the last limitations states that the “parameters” have to be computed or selected. Therefore, the claim is considered indefinite.
Claims 6-8 are rejected for depending on claim 5. Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as claim 5 and claims 15-18 are rejected for depending on claim 14.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein computing or selecting the subsequent sample or line in k-space, the parameters, or both” is indefinite because it is unclear if said limitation refers back to “dynamically computing or selecting the subsequent sample or line in k-space, parameters associated with a radio-frequency (RF) pulse sequence, or both for acquiring the subsequent sample or line in k-space” in claim 5. Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the computing or selecting” is indefinite because it is unclear if said limitation refers back to “dynamically computing or selecting the subsequent sample or line in k-space, parameters associated with a radio-frequency (RF) pulse sequence, or both for acquiring the subsequent sample or line in k-space” in claim 5. Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1, 3, 10, 12, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishihara (US 2015/0260815).
Regarding claim 1, Nishihara teaches a method of dynamically adapting a predetermined or predefined sampling pattern during one or more non-invasive measurements, comprising: by a computer system:
accessing or obtaining the predetermined or predefined sampling pattern [Fig. 11, step 1102, wherein an initial k-space trajectory is selected. See also rest of reference.];
providing an instruction to a measurement device to perform a non-invasive measurement on at least a portion of an individual [Fig. 11, step 1103, wherein excitation region is set by measuring a positioning image. See positioning image disclosed throughout reference. See also rest of reference.];
receiving, associated with the measurement device, information associated with the non-invasive measurement [Fig. 11, step 1103, wherein excitation region is set by measuring a positioning image. See positioning image disclosed throughout reference. See also rest of reference.];
determining, based at least in part on the information associated with the non-invasive measurement, an orientation, a scale, or both associated with at least the portion of the individual [Fig. 11, steps 1103-1106, wherein excitation region is adjusted and set. Therefore, the excitation region is determined. ¶0089, wherein respective positions, orientations, and sizes of the main lobe 331 and the side lobe 332 of the excitation region are determined. See also rest of reference.];
computing a modified sampling pattern based at least in part on the predetermined or predefined sampling pattern and the determined orientation, the determined scale, or both [Fig. 11, step 1107 and ¶0111, wherein the k-space is adjusted when the excitation region is adjusted and determined in step 1106. See also rest of reference.]; and
providing one or more second instructions to the measurement device to perform a second non-invasive measurement on at least the portion of the individual based at least in part on the modified sampling pattern [Fig 11. Step 1109-1110. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Nishihara further teaches wherein the predetermined or predefined sampling pattern is associated with at least the portion of the individual [Fig. 11, step 1102, wherein an initial k-space trajectory is selected and is based on the initial excitation region. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 above also apply to claim 10. Claim 10 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the same reasons for rejection as claim 3 above also apply to claim 12. Claim 12 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, Nishihara further teaches wherein the operations comprise: receiving, associated with the measurement device and the second non-invasive measurement, third information; and reconstructing, based at least in part on the third information, an image of at least the portion of the individual [See Steps 1109-1110. ¶0048-0052. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 20, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 above also apply to claim 20. Claim 20 is merely the non-transitory computer-readable medium version of method claim 1.
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 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Nishihara, in view of Zhu (US 2022/0138943).
Regarding claim 2, Nishihara teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Nishihara further teaches wherein accessing or obtaining the predetermined or predefined sampling pattern comprises selecting the predetermined or predefined sampling pattern [Fig. 11, step 1102, wherein an initial k-space trajectory is selected. See also rest of reference.].
However, Nishihara is silent in teaching selecting the predetermined or predefined sampling pattern from a set of predetermined or predefined sampling patterns.
Zhu, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein accessing or obtaining the predetermined or predefined sampling pattern comprises selecting the predetermined or predefined sampling pattern from a set of predetermined or predefined sampling patterns [¶0023-0024, wherein a list of predefined sampling trajectories include Cartesian, radial, or spiral. See also 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 Nishihara and Zhu because both methods teach adjusting/optimizing k-space sampling patterns and because Zhu teaches it is known that Cartesian, radial, and spiral sampling patterns are well-known basic sampling trajectories that are most-often used in typical MRI scans [Zhu - ¶0023-0024. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, the same reasons for rejection as claim 2 above also apply to claim 11. Claim 11 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 2.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Nishihara, in view of Kunze (US 2023/0400544).
Regarding claim 4, Nishihara teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Nishihara is silent in teaching wherein the predetermined or predefined sampling pattern comprises a sub-sampling pattern in k-space; and wherein the predetermined or predefined sampling pattern is different from a random or a constant sub-sampling pattern in k-space.
Kunze, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the predetermined or predefined sampling pattern comprises a sub-sampling pattern in k-space; and wherein the predetermined or predefined sampling pattern is different from a random or a constant sub-sampling pattern in k-space [See Figs. 2A-2C and corresponding description. ¶0040. 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 Nishihara and Kunze because both methods teach k-space sampling patterns and because Kunze teaches the disclosed sub-sampling patterns can be robust for estimation of motion in dynamic imaging [Kunze - ¶0065].
Regarding claim 13, the same reasons for rejection as claim 4 above also apply to claim 13. Claim 13 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 4.
Claims 5-7 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Nishihara, in view of Sacolick (US 2022/0244334).
Regarding claim 5, Nishihara teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Nishihara is silent in teaching the limitations of claim 5.
Sacolick, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the second non-invasive measurement comprises a magnetic-resonance (MR) scan of at least the portion of the individual; wherein, during the MR scan, the method comprises: receiving, associated with the measurement device, second information associated with measurement of a given sample or line in k-space [¶0121, see determination of whether to obtain additional data may be based on whether there are any locations in k-space yet to be sampled. See also rest of reference.]; calculating, based at least in part on the second information, whether a subsequent sample or line in k-space is worth acquiring or whether a convergence criterion has been achieved [¶0121, see determination of whether to obtain additional data may be based on whether there are any locations in k-space yet to be sampled. The target SNR. See also rest of reference.]; when the subsequent sample or line in k-space is not worth acquiring or when the convergence criterion has been achieved, instructing the measurement device to cease the second non-invasive measurement [¶0121, see In some embodiments, additional data may be acquired until a target signal-to-noise ratio is reached. The target SNR. See also rest of reference.]; and when the subsequent sample or line in k-space is worth acquiring or when the convergence criterion has not been achieved, dynamically computing or selecting the subsequent sample or line in k-space, parameters associated with a radio-frequency (RF) pulse sequence, or both for acquiring the subsequent sample or line in k-space and providing a given second instruction in the one or more second instructions to the measurement device to acquire the subsequent sample or line in k-space during the second non-invasive measurement, wherein the given second instruction comprises the computed or selected parameters [¶0121, see In some embodiments, additional data may be acquired until a target signal-to-noise ratio is reached. The target SNR. ¶0123-¶0148, wherein subsequent pulse sequences are determined to acquire the subsequent data. 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 Nishihara and Sacolick because both methods teach k-space sampling patterns and Sacolick teaches it is known in the art to use a metric to determine when k-space sampling is complete, this can quantify how much time is needed/reduced for acquiring an image of desired quality [Sacolick - ¶0121].
Regarding claim 6, Nishihara and Sacolick teaches the limitations of claim 5, which this claim depends from.
Nishihara is silent in teaching the limitations of claim 6.
Sacolick further teaches wherein whether a subsequent sample or line in k-space is worth acquiring is determined based at least in part on an estimate of a reconstructed image corresponding to one or more samples or lines in k-space that have already acquired [¶0121, see target SNR or until background artifacts of image are reduced below a threshold.].
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 Nishihara and Sacolick because both methods teach k-space sampling patterns and Sacolick teaches it is known in the art to use a metric to determine when k-space sampling is complete, this can quantify how much time is needed/reduced for acquiring an image of desired quality [Sacolick - ¶0121].
Regarding claim 7, Nishihara and Sacolick teaches the limitations of claim 5, which this claim depends from.
Nishihara is silent in teaching the limitations of claim 7.
Sacolick further teaches wherein computing or selecting the subsequent sample or line in k-space, the parameters, or both comprises compiling the given second instruction during the second non-invasive measurement [¶0121, see In some embodiments, additional data may be acquired until a target signal-to-noise ratio is reached. The target SNR. ¶0123-¶0148, wherein subsequent pulse sequences are determined to acquire the subsequent data. 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 Nishihara and Sacolick because both methods teach k-space sampling patterns and Sacolick teaches it is known in the art to use a metric to determine when k-space sampling is complete, this can quantify how much time is needed/reduced for acquiring an image of desired quality [Sacolick - ¶0121].
Regarding claim 14, the same reasons for rejection as claim 5 above also apply to claim 14. Claim 14 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, the same reasons for rejection as claim 6 above also apply to claim 15. Claim 15 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, the same reasons for rejection as claim 7 above also apply to claim 16. Claim 16 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 7.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Nishihara, in view of previously cited Sacolick, in view of Huang (US 2021/0272335).
Regarding claim 8, Nishihara and Sacolick teaches the limitations of claim 5, which this claim depends from.
Nishihara and Sacolick are silent in teaching the limitations of claim 8.
Huang, which is in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the computing or selecting are performed using a pretrained predictive model [¶0005, ¶0014,¶ 0033, ¶0041. 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 Nishihara and Sacolick with the teachings of Huang because all references are in the field of k-space sampling in MRI and because Huang teaches it is known in the art that neural network can be used to determine corrected k-space sampling trajectories [Huang - ¶0005, ¶0014,¶ 0033, ¶0041. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 17, the same reasons for rejection as claim 8 above also apply to claim 17. Claim 17 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 8.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Nishihara, in view of Chitiboi (US 2022/0156918).
Regarding claim 9, Nishihara teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Nishihara is silent in teaching the limitations of claim 9.
Chitiboi, which is in the field of MRI, teaches further teaches wherein the non-invasive measurement comprises a pilot magnetic-resonance (MR) scan comprising a set of samples or lines in k-space corresponding to different projections in space [¶0027See 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 Nishihara and Chitiboi because both methods teach acquiring target regions and Chitiboi teaches it is known in the art to use pilot scans to determine/locate the target region that is later imaged with an MRI scan [Chitiboi - ¶0027.].
Regarding claim 18, the same reasons for rejection as claim 9 above also apply to claim 18. Claim 18 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 9.
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