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 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 1-2, 10-11, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feiweier (US 2017/0205483).
Regarding claim 1, Feiweier teaches a method for determining a parameter setting for a gradient power of a magnetic resonance system by an electronic computing device, the method performed continuously during a sequence-prepare phase in which a user provides input via an input device to define a measurement protocol, wherein the method is performed prior to the user initiating a start of measurement the method comprising:
specifying a limit value for a nerve stimulation of a person positioned in the magnetic resonance system [Fig. 2 and ¶0108. ¶0031, ¶0122. See also rest of reference.];
repeatedly performing the following steps in real-time response to continuous user input [¶0010. See also rest of reference.] via the input device during the sequence-prepare phase:
entering an individual gradient parameter within a predefined range for a pulse of the gradient power as the parameter setting [Fig. 2 and ¶0109-0110. ¶0013, ¶0044. See also rest of reference.];
approximating a potential nerve stimulation as a function of the individual gradient parameter by a predefined mathematical model [See Fig. 2 and ¶0114-0116. See also simulation unit. See also rest of reference.];
comparing the approximated potential nerve stimulation with the limit value [See Fig. 2 and ¶0114-0116. ¶0031, ¶0122.. See also rest of reference.]; and
determining the parameter setting as a function of the comparison, wherein the predefined range is dynamically defined based on the predefined mathematical model and the limit value such that gradient parameter values that would cause the potential nerve stimulation to exceed the limit value are suppressed and not available for selection [See permissible range of parameter values. ¶0114-0116. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 2, Feiweier further teaches wherein a gradient amplitude of the pulse, a slew rate of the pulse, or the gradient amplitude of the pulse and the slew rate of the pulse are generated as the individual gradient parameter as a function of an input [See gradient amplitude or slew rate mentioned throughout reference. ¶0115. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, Feiweier further teaches wherein a peripheral nerve stimulation, a potential cardio nerve stimulation, or the peripheral nerve stimulation and the potential cardio nerve stimulation are taken into account in the determination of the parameter setting [¶0014. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Feiweier further teaches wherein limit values for the peripheral nerve stimulation, the cardio nerve stimulation, or the peripheral nerve stimulation and the cardio nerve stimulation are specified for determining the parameter setting [¶0014. Fig. 2 and ¶0108. ¶0031, ¶0122. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 13, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to this claim. Claim 13 is merely the non-transitory computer implemented storage medium version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the same reasons for rejection as claim 2 also apply to this claim. Claim 14 is merely the non-transitory computer implemented storage medium version of method claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to this claim. Claim 20 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 1.
At least independent claims 1, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feiweier (US 2015/0285885. Herein referred to as ‘885.).
Regarding claim 1, ‘858 teaches a method for determining a parameter setting for a gradient power of a magnetic resonance system by an electronic computing device, the method performed continuously during a sequence-prepare phase in which a user provides input via an input device to define a measurement protocol, wherein the method is performed prior to the user initiating a start of measurement the method comprising:
specifying a limit value for a nerve stimulation of a person positioned in the magnetic resonance system [See physiological limits. ¶0032.3 See also rest of reference.];
repeatedly performing the following steps in real-time response to continuous user input [See Fig. 2-3. ¶0057. See also rest of reference.] via the input device during the sequence-prepare phase:
entering an individual gradient parameter within a predefined range for a pulse of the gradient power as the parameter setting [See gradient slew rate and gradient amplitude. See also rest of reference.];
approximating a potential nerve stimulation as a function of the individual gradient parameter by a predefined mathematical model [See SAFE model. See also simulation unit. See also rest of reference.];
comparing the approximated potential nerve stimulation with the limit value [See Fig. 2-5 which all disclose a step(s) for comparing to a limit value. See also rest of reference.]; and
determining the parameter setting as a function of the comparison, wherein the predefined range is dynamically defined based on the predefined mathematical model and the limit value such that gradient parameter values that would cause the potential nerve stimulation to exceed the limit value are suppressed and not available for selection [¶0057, see grey values and red values. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 13, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to this claim. Claim 13 is merely the non-transitory computer implemented storage medium version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to this claim. Claim 20 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Regarding claim 20, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to this claim. Claim 20 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 1.
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 3-4 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Feiweier, in view of Vu (US 2010/0308829).
Regarding claim 3, Feiweier teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Feiweier is silent in teaching wherein, as the potential nerve stimulation, a nerve stimulation formed in all three spatial directions is approximated as a total nerve stimulation.
Vu, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein, as the potential nerve stimulation, a nerve stimulation formed in all three spatial directions is approximated as a total nerve stimulation [See equation 4. 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 Feiweier with the teachings of Vu because both Feiweier and Vu are in the field of determining PNS and Vu teaches it is known in the art to calculate PNS using
PNG
media_image1.png
38
180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[Vu - See equation 4. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 4, Feiweier and Vu teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
However, Feiweier is silent in teaching wherein the potential nerve stimulation is approximated for each spatial direction and the total nerve stimulation is
Vu, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches Vu further teaches wherein a potential nerve stimulation is approximated for each spatial direction and the total nerve stimulation is determined by:
PNG
media_image1.png
38
180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where NTotal corresponds to the total nerve stimulation and Nx, Ny, Nz correspond to the respective nerve stimulation in one spatial direction [See equation 4. 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 Feiweier with the teachings of Vu because both Feiweier and Vu are in the field of determining PNS and Vu teaches it is known in the art to calculate PNS using
PNG
media_image1.png
38
180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[Vu - See equation 4. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 15, the same reasons for rejection as claim 3 also apply to this claim. Claim 15 is merely the non-transitory computer implemented storage medium version of method claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, the same reasons for rejection as claim 4 also apply to this claim. Claim 16 is merely the non-transitory computer implemented storage medium version of method claim 4.
Claims 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Feiweier, in view of Gong (US 2022/0381855).
Regarding claim 5, Feiweier teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Feiweier is silent in teaching wherein a respective nerve stimulation is determined in all three spatial directions and the potential nerve stimulation is approximated as that which has the highest value of the determined three nerve stimulations in one spatial direction.
Gong, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein a respective nerve stimulation is determined in all three spatial directions and the potential nerve stimulation is approximated as that which has the highest value of the determined three nerve stimulations in one spatial direction [¶0102, The direction in which the PNS value of the preliminary gradient pulse configuration has the highest value among the plurality of specified directions may be determined as a maximum PNS direction of the preliminary gradient pulse configuration. Accordingly, the PNS value in the maximum PNS direction may be determined as the global PNS value (also referred to as the global maximum PNS value) of the preliminary gradient pulse configuration. ¶0122 and Fig. 9, If a PNS value in any one of the plurality of directions exceeds a corresponding PNS threshold in the direction, the process 900 may proceed to 940. Therefore, if only the highest PNS in a specific direction exceeds the threshold, parameters are adjusted. 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 Feiweier with the teachings of Gong because both references are in the field of creating pulse sequence that do not exceed stimulation thresholds and because Gong teaches it is known in the art to determine stimulation in all three spatial directions and the potential nerve stimulation is approximated as that which has the highest value of the determined three nerve stimulations in one spatial direction [Gong - ¶0102, ¶0122, Fig. 9].
Regarding claim 17, the same reasons for rejection as claim 5 also apply to this claim. Claim 17 is merely the non-transitory computer implemented storage medium version of method claim 5.
Claims 6-7 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Feiweier, in view of Hebrank (“SAFE-Model - A New Method for Predicting Peripheral Nerve Stimulations in MRI”).
Regarding claim 6, Feiweier teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Feiweier is silent in teaching wherein the predefined mathematical model is specified as an analytical mathematical model.
Hebrank, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the predefined mathematical model is specified as an analytical mathematical model [See New Stimulation Model and Results sections. Fig. 2. 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 Feiweier with the teachings of Hebrank because Feiweier is in the field of ensuring MR sequences do not exceed PNS thresholds for patient safety and Hebrank teaches SAFE is a known model for determining if gradient pulses exceed PNS thresholds [Hebrank - See New Stimulation Model and Results sections. Fig. 2. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Feiweier and Hebrank teaches the limitations of claim 6, which this claim depends from.
Feiweier and Hebrank both teach wherein at least one of a ramp-up of the pulse, a plateau of the pulse, or a ramp-down of the pulse is evaluated analytically [Feiweier – See Fig. 4 and 8. Hebrank - See New Stimulation Model and Results sections. Fig. 2. 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 Feiweier with the teachings of Hebrank because Feiweier is in the field of ensuring MR sequences do not exceed PNS thresholds for patient safety and Hebrank teaches SAFE is a known model for determining if gradient pulses exceed PNS thresholds [Hebrank - See New Stimulation Model and Results sections. Fig. 2. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 18, the same reasons for rejection as claim 6 also apply to this claim. Claim 18 is merely the non-transitory computer implemented storage medium version of method claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, the same reasons for rejection as claim 7 also apply to this claim. Claim 19 is merely the non-transitory computer implemented storage medium version of method claim 7.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Feiweier, and in further view of Feiweier (US 2015/0285885. Herein referred to as ‘885.).
Regarding claim 8, Feiweier teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Feiweier are silent in teaching wherein the limit value is specified with a safety factor.
‘885, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the limit value is specified with a safety factor [¶0060, see safety margin. 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 Feiweier with the teachings of ‘885 because both references are in the field of ensuring MR sequences do not exceed thresholds for patient safety and because ‘885 teaches it is known in the art to include safety margins with threshold values in order to thus reduce the complexity in the calculation of a measurement sequence that complies with physiological limits [‘885 -¶0060. See also rest of reference.].
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