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, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 05/18/2026, with respect to the previous 112(a) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant arguments/remarks, filed 05/18/2026, with respect to the previous 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 3-4, 9-10, 12-13, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US 2016/0104279).
Regarding claim 1, Li 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 [¶0006, wherein the k-space trajectory is modified/corrected. Therefore, the unmodified/uncorrected k-space trajectory is the predefined sampling pattern. 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, wherein the non-invasive measurement comprises a magnetic- resonance (MR) scan of at least the portion of the individual [¶0006, wherein images are acquired that are used for estimating motion using image-based registration. See also rest of reference.];
receiving, associated with the measurement device, information associated with the non-invasive measurement; [¶0006, wherein images are acquired that are used for estimating motion using image-based registration. ¶0064, wherein rotation and scaling are determined from the motion estimation. 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, wherein the determining comprises a matrix calculation [¶0006, wherein images are acquired that are used for estimating motion using image-based registration, see affine transform matrices. ¶0064, wherein rotation and scaling are determined from the motion estimation. ¶0065, see affine matrix. 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 [¶0006, wherein the k-space trajectory is modified/corrected. Therefore, the modified/corrected k-space trajectory is the modified sampling pattern. 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 [¶0006, wherein the k-space trajectory is modified/corrected. Therefore, the modified/corrected k-space trajectory is the modified sampling pattern. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Li further teaches wherein the predetermined or predefined sampling pattern is associated with at least the portion of the individual [¶0006, see radial acquisition associated with free-breathing of the heart of the patient. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 4, Li further 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 [Fig. 11a and 11b and corresponding descriptions. See also rest of reference].
Regarding claim 9, Li further teaches wherein the non-invasive measurement comprises a pilot MR scan comprising a set of samples or lines in k-space corresponding to different projections in space [See ¶0006, see scout scan and radial acquisition scheme. See Fig. 11, wherein radial acquisition includes projections. 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 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.
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.
Regarding claim 19, Li 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 [¶0080. 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 Li, in view of Zhu (US 2022/0138943).
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Li further teaches wherein accessing or obtaining the predetermined or predefined sampling pattern comprises selecting the predetermined or predefined sampling pattern [See radial trajectories. See also rest of reference.].
However, Li 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 Li 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 5-7 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Li, in view of Sacolick (US 2022/0244334).
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Li 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 an 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 subsequent sample or line in k-space, the parameters associated with the RF pulse sequence, or both [¶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 Li 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, Li and Sacolick teaches the limitations of claim 5, which this claim depends from.
Li 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 Li 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, Li and Sacolick teaches the limitations of claim 5, which this claim depends from.
Li 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 associated with the RF pulse sequence, 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 Li 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 Li, in view of previously cited Sacolick, in view of Huang (US 2021/0272335).
Regarding claim 8, Li and Sacolick teaches the limitations of claim 5, which this claim depends from.
Li 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 the subsequent sample or line in k-space, the parameters associated with the RF pulse sequence, or both, 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 Li 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.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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 2858
Prosecution Insights