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 .
Drawings
Figures 1-4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated, as these figures are brought up in the background section of the specification. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 last line of the claim discloses “the MR scan”. However it is unclear if “the MR scan” is the same or different from “the current MR scan”. Therefore, the claim is considered indefinite. Claims 2-10 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the claim discloses “a camera”. However, it is unclear if “a camera” in claim 3 is the same or different from “a camera” in claim 2 (which this claim depends from.).
Claims 7-9 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, it is not clear what a “single-step multi-station scanning protocol” means from the claim language or the specification.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “determining whether the current MR scan is a whole-body scan or a half-body scan, and, if yes” is considered indefinite. It is not clear what is considered “yes”. For instance it not clear if the current MR scan needs to be a whole body scan to be yes or a half body scan to be yes, or possibly either.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above. Claims 12-20 are rejected for depending on claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, it is not clear if claim 13 should depend from claim 12, like how claim 3 depends from claim 2.
Claims 17-18 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 19, it is not clear what a “single-step multi-station scanning protocol” means from the claim language or the specification.
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, 6-11, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmitt (US 2008/0205725).
Regarding claim 1, Schmitt teaches a magnetic resonance (MR) scanning method, comprising:
detecting, by a characteristic point and site detection module, positions of individual characteristic points of interest and positions and sizes of individual sites of interest of a target human body in a current MR scan [¶0027, wherein the size of the examination person determines the sub-measurement regions. Fig. 2a, see overview images are used (21) to determine sub-measurement regions (26). ¶0025 and ¶0027 and Fig. 3, wherein the size of the sub-measurement regions are determined. See also rest of reference.];
calculating, by a scanning position and range calculation module, a scan start position [See start point and upper/lower boundaries.] and a total scan range [See start and end points. See upper/lower boundaries. See Fig. 3. See also rest of reference.] of the current MR scan according to the detected positions of individual characteristic points of interest and the detected positions and sizes of individual sites of interest of the target human body [¶0027, wherein the size and number of sub-measurement regions depends on the size of the patient. See also rest of reference.]; and
performing, by the scanning position and range calculation module, the current MR scan according to the calculated scan start position and total scan range of the MR scan [Fig. 2B, step 36. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 6, Schmitt further teaches wherein the calculating the scan start position and total scan range of the current MR scan according to the detected positions of individual characteristic points of interest and the positions and sizes of individual sites of interest of the target human body comprises: obtaining the scan start position of the current MR scan according to the characteristic point of interest corresponding to the scan start point defined in a protocol adopted in the current MR scan and in combination with the detected position of the characteristic point of interest of the target human body [See start and end points. See upper/lower boundaries. See Fig. 3. See also rest of reference.]; obtaining a scan end position of the current MR scan according to the characteristic point of interest corresponding to the scan end point defined in the protocol adopted in the current MR scan and in combination with the detected position of the characteristic point of interest of the target human body [See start and end points. See upper/lower boundaries. See Fig. 3. See also rest of reference.]; and determining the total scan range of the current MR scan according to the scan start position and scan end position of the current MR scan [See start and end points. See upper/lower boundaries. See Fig. 3. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Schmitt further teaches wherein the performing the current MR scan according to the calculated scan start position and total scan range of the MR scan comprises: performing the current MR scan directly according to the calculated scan start position and total scan range of the current MR scan [See start and end points. See upper/lower boundaries. See Fig. 3. See also rest of reference.] if a Movement During Scan protocol is adopted in the current MR scan [¶0013, ¶0025 wherein the table is moved during the imaging. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 8, Schmitt further teaches wherein the performing the current MR scan according to the calculated scan start position and total scan range of the MR scan comprises: determining whether an overlap area is defined between adjacent stations in a protocol adopted in the current MR scan if a cyclic multi-station scanning protocol is adopted in the current MR scan [¶0027. See also rest of reference.]; if yes, calculating an optimal number of scanning stations for the current MR scan according to a minimum overlap area between adjacent stations defined by the protocol, the scan range for each station defined by the protocol, and the calculated total scan range for the current MR scan, calculating the optimal size of the overlap area between adjacent stations according to the calculated total scan range of the current MR scan and the calculated optimal number of scanning stations for the current MR scan, calculating a scanning position of each station according to the calculated scan start position of the current MR scan, the calculated optimal size of the overlap area between adjacent stations, and the scan range for each station defined by the protocol, and performing the current MR scan according to the calculated scanning position of each station in the current MR scan and the scan range for each station defined by the protocol [Fig. 2A-3. ¶0027. See also upper and lower boundaries/start and end points. See also rest of reference.]; and if no, calculating an optimal number of scanning stations for the current MR scan according to the scan range for each station defined by the protocol and the calculated total scan range for the current MR scan, calculating an optimal scan range for each station according to the calculated total scan range for the current MR scan and the calculated optimal number of scanning stations for the current MR scan, and performing the current MR scan according to the calculated scan start position of the current MR scan and the calculated optimal scan range for each station.
Regarding claim 9, Schmitt further teaches wherein the performing the current MR scan according to the calculated scan start position and total scan range of the MR scan comprises: if a single-step multi-station scanning protocol is adopted in the current MR scan, determining the scanning positions of each station in the current MR scan according to the characteristic points of interest defined in the protocol adopted in the current MR scan corresponding to each station and in combination with the detected positions of the characteristic points of interest of the target human body [¶0025-0027, see where either continuous table feed is used or stationary table after table feed. See also Figs. 2A-3 which show the sub-measurement region areas. See also rest of reference.]; and determining the scan ranges of each station in the current MR scan according to the sites of interest defined in the protocol corresponding to each station and in combination with the detected sizes of the sites of interest of the target human body [¶0025-0027, see where either continuous table feed is used or stationary table after table feed. See also Figs. 2A-3 which show the sub-measurement region areas. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, Schmitt further teaches wherein the method, before detecting the positions of individual characteristic points of interest and the positions and sizes of individual sites of interest of the target human body in the current MR scan, further comprises: determining whether the current MR scan is a whole-body scan or a half-body scan [¶0024, see whole-body scan. See also rest of reference.], and, if yes, performing an action of detecting the positions of the individual characteristic points of interest and the positions and sizes of the individual sites of interest of the target human body in the current MR scan [¶0024-0027. Figs. 2A-3. ¶0027, wherein the size of the examination person determines the sub-measurement regions. Fig. 2a, see overview images are used (21) to determine sub-measurement regions (26). ¶0025 and ¶0027 and Fig. 3, wherein the size of the sub-measurement regions are determined. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to this claim. Claim 11 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the same reasons for rejection as claim 6 also apply to this claim. Claim 16 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, the same reasons for rejection as claim 7 also apply to this claim. Claim 17 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, the same reasons for rejection as claim 8 also apply to this claim. Claim 18 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, the same reasons for rejection as claim 9 also apply to this claim. Claim 19 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, Schmitt further teaches a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system, wherein the MRI system comprises a magnetic resonance (MR) scanning device as claimed in claim 11 [See MR system. See also rest of reference.].
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 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Schmitt, in view of Sanders (US 2024/0378747).
Regarding claim 2, Schmitt teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Schmitt is silent in teaching wherein the detecting the positions of individual characteristic points of interest and the positions and sizes of individual sites of interest of the target human body in the current MR scan comprises: capturing, with a camera, images of the target human body to be scanned in the current MR scan; inputting the images of the target human body into a characteristic point and site detection model for calculation, and outputting, with the model, the positions of the individual characteristic points of interest and the positions and sizes of the individual sites of interest of the target human body in an image coordinate system; and converting the positions of the individual characteristic points of interest and the positions and sizes of the individual sites of interest of the target human body in the image coordinate system to positions of individual characteristic points of interest and the positions and sizes of individual sites of interest of the target human body in an MR system coordinate system.
Sanders, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the detecting the positions of individual characteristic points of interest and the positions and sizes of individual sites of interest of the target human body in the current MR scan comprises: capturing, with a camera, images of the target human body to be scanned in the current MR scan [¶0100, wherein data can be acquired with a camera. See also rest of reference.]; inputting the images of the target human body into a characteristic point and site detection model for calculation, and outputting, with the model, the positions of the individual characteristic points of interest and the positions and sizes of the individual sites of interest of the target human body in an image coordinate system [See model in Fig. 2 and Flow chart in Fig. 9. See ¶0045 and ¶0090. See also rest of reference.]; and converting the positions of the individual characteristic points of interest and the positions and sizes of the individual sites of interest of the target human body in the image coordinate system to positions of individual characteristic points of interest and the positions and sizes of individual sites of interest of the target human body in an MR system coordinate system [See model in Fig. 2 and Flow chart in Fig. 9. See ¶0045 and ¶0090. 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 Schmitt and Sanders because both references are in the field of MRI and because Sanders teaches it is known in the art to use machine learning models to improve the quality, accuracy, consistency (e.g., precision), and efficiency for locating objects in MR images [Sanders - ¶0026. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Schmitt and Sanders teach the limitations of claim 2, which this claim depends from.
However, Schmitt is silent in teaching the limitations of claim 3.
Sanders further teaches wherein the characteristic point and site detection model is obtained by: A. obtaining a training sample set, wherein a training sample is a human body image collected by a camera [¶0100. See also rest of reference.]; obtaining true positions of individual characteristic points of interest and true positions and true sizes of individual sites of interest for each training sample [¶0045, wherein loss is calculated. See also rest of reference.]; B. inputting each training sample into a characteristic point and site detection neural network to be trained for calculation, and outputting, with the neural network, calculated positions of individual characteristic points of interest and calculated positions and calculated sizes of individual sites of interest for each training sample [See model in Fig. 2, Fig. 5, and Flow chart in Fig. 9. See ¶0045 and ¶0090. See also rest of reference.]; C. calculating a loss function according to the calculated positions of individual characteristic points of interest and the calculated positions and calculated sizes of individual sites of interest for each training sample, and the true positions of individual characteristic points of interest and the true positions and true sizes of individual sites of interest for each training sample [See model in Fig. 2, Fig. 5, and Flow chart in Fig. 9. See ¶0045 and ¶0090. See also rest of reference.]; D. adjusting the characteristic point and site detection neural network according to the loss function [See model in Fig. 2, Fig. 5, and Flow chart in Fig. 9. See ¶0045 and ¶0090. See also rest of reference.]; and E. repeating the steps B to D until the characteristic point and site detection neural network converges, and using the converged characteristic point and site detection neural network as the characteristic point and site detection model [See model in Fig. 2, Fig. 5, and Flow chart in Fig. 9. See ¶0045 and ¶0090. 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 Schmitt and Sanders because both references are in the field of MRI and because Sanders teaches it is known in the art to use machine learning models to improve the quality, accuracy, consistency (e.g., precision), and efficiency for locating objects in MR images [Sanders - ¶0026. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 12, the same reasons for rejection as claim 2 also apply to this claim. Claim 12 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, the same reasons for rejection as claim 3 also apply to this claim. Claim 13 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the closest prior art is considered previously cited Schmitt and Sanders. However, both references do not teach wherein the obtaining the true positions of individual characteristic points of interest and the true positions and true sizes of individual sites of interest for each training sample comprises: obtaining MR images corresponding to each training sample, the MR images being marked with the true positions of individual characteristic points of interest and the true positions and true sizes of individual sites of interest; and for any MR image, converting the true positions of individual characteristic points of interest, and the true positions and true sizes of individual sites of interest marked on the MR image from the MR system coordinate system to the image coordinate system to obtain the true positions of individual characteristic points of interest, and the true positions and true sizes of individual sites of interest for the training samples corresponding to the MR image.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the closest prior art is considered previously cited Schmitt and Sanders. However, both references do not teach wherein the detecting the positions of individual characteristic points of interest and the positions and sizes of individual sites of interest of the target human body in the current MR scan comprises: capturing, with a camera, images of the target human body to be scanned in the current MR scan; from the images, detecting a height and a crown position of the target human body or detecting a height and a sole position of the target human body; determining the positions of individual characteristic points of interest of the target human body in the image coordinate system according to a ratio of a distance between the individual characteristic points of interest and the crown to the height and in combination with the height and the crown position of the target human body; alternatively, determining the positions of the individual characteristic point of interest of the target human body in the image coordinate system according to a predefined ratio of the distance between the individual characteristic point of interest and the sole to the height and in combination with the height and the sole position of the target human body; determining the positions of individual sites of interest of the target human body in the image coordinate system according to the ratio of the distance between the individual sites of interest and the crown to the height and in combination with the height and the crown position of the target human body; alternatively, determining the positions of individual sites of interest of the target human body in the image coordinate system according to a predefined ratio of the distance between the individual sites of interest and the sole to the height and in combination with the height and the sole position of the target human body; determining the sizes of individual sites of interest of the target human body in the image coordinate system according to a predefined ratio of the sizes of the individual sites of interest to the height and in combination with the height of the target human body; and converting the positions of the individual characteristic points of interest and the positions and sizes of the individual sites of interest of the target human body in the image coordinate system to the positions of the individual characteristic points of interest and the positions and sizes of the individual sites of interest of the target human body in an MR system coordinate system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2021/0196225 is considered relevant because the reference determines the positions and sizes of target areas for use in MRI.
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
Prosecution Insights