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 prior art rejection of the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same prior art combination in the prior rejection of record.
The examiner also would like to note that it is believed that prior art Gong is believed to at least teach some of the amended limitations of the independent claims according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. For instance, it is believed that Gong teaches “the method performed continuously during a sequence-prepare phase in which a user provides input via an input device to define a measurement protocol”. Gong teaches “the method performed continuously” because the steps of Fig. 13 are performed in a continuous manner. Further, Gong teaches that the pulse sequence is “to be implemented” [Abstract], therefore, the processing of the gradients in Gong is done in a “sequence-prepare phase”. Gong also teaches “in which a user provides input via an input device to define a measurement protocol” [Fig. 13, steps 1320-1325, wherein the updating strategy is determined by a user, ¶0132. Further, the loop between steps 1310-1325 suggest that the updating strategy is determined repeatedly. Fig. 13, steps 1305 and 1325 and ¶0155 and Fig. 6, step 610. See also rest of reference which teaches a user input.]. Please see below for full details of the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “a user” in lines 4-5 should be “the user”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a start of a measurement” in line 5 should be “a start of a measurement,”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
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, 5, 10-11, 13-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Gong (US 2022/0381855), in view of Kim (US 2017/0185280).
Regarding claim 1, Gong 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 [Fig. 13, steps 1320-1325, wherein the updating strategy is determined by a user, ¶0132. Further, the loop between steps 1310-1325 suggest that the updating strategy is determined repeatedly. Fig. 13, steps 1305 and 1325 and ¶0155 and Fig. 6, step 610. See also abstract, which teaches that the pulse sequence is “to be implemented” after processing the gradient pulses for PNS. Therefore, the methods disclosed happen before executing the pulse sequence. See also rest of reference.], wherein the method is performed prior to a user initiating a start of a measurement the method comprising:
specifying a limit value for a nerve stimulation of a person positioned in the magnetic resonance system [See PNS threshold. See also rest of reference.];
repeatedly performing the following steps in real-time response to user input 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. 13, steps 1305 and 1325 and ¶0155 which teaches the preliminary gradient pulse configuration may be a configuration of one or more gradient pulses in a pulse sequence according to at least one pulse configuration rule. In some embodiments, the pulse sequence may include a plurality of gradient pulses. An amplitude and/or a slope of each of at least one gradient pulse related to the preliminary gradient pulse configuration may be set according to the at least one pulse configuration rule. See also Fig. 6, step 610. See also rest of reference.];
approximating a potential nerve stimulation as a function of the individual gradient parameter by a predefined mathematical model [Fig. 13, step 1310 and ¶0156, wherein a PNS is determined based on the PNS model. See also Fig. 6, step 620. See also rest of reference.];
comparing the approximated potential nerve stimulation with the limit value [Fig. 13, step 1315 and ¶0159, wherein a PNS compared to a threshold. See also Fig. 6, step 630. See also rest of reference.]; and
determining the parameter setting as a function of the comparison [Fig. 13, step 1320-1325 and ¶0162-0163, wherein a gradient amplitude can be decreased until the threshold is met. See also Fig. 6, step 630. ¶0083 and ¶0167, see real-time. See also rest of reference.].
However, Gong is silent in teaching in response to continuous user input.
Kim, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches in response to continuous user input [Fig. 5, steps 501 and 503. See also Fig. 4 and ¶0133-0136. Figs. 7-12 and corresponding descriptions. See also rest of reference.]. Kim also teaches a method performed continuously during a sequence-prepare phase in which a user provides input via an input device to define a measurement protocol [Fig. 5, steps 501 and 503. See also Fig. 4 and ¶0133-0136. Figs. 7-12 and corresponding descriptions. See also rest of reference.] and repeatedly performing the following steps in real-time response to continuous user input via the input device during the sequence-prepare phase [Fig. 5, steps 501 and 503. See also Fig. 4 and ¶0133-0136. See Figs. 7-12 and corresponding descriptions. 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 Gong and Kim because both methods are in the field of determining pulse sequence parameters in MRI and because Kim teaches it is known in the art to change/edit a pulse sequence parameter and how related parameters are affected and need to be changed to satisfy any limit values [See Kim – Figs. 4-5 and 7-12].
Regarding claim 2, Gong and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Gong 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 [Fig. 13, step 1305 and ¶0155 which teaches the preliminary gradient pulse configuration may be a configuration of one or more gradient pulses in a pulse sequence according to at least one pulse configuration rule. In some embodiments, the pulse sequence may include a plurality of gradient pulses. An amplitude and/or a slope of each of at least one gradient pulse related to the preliminary gradient pulse configuration may be set according to the at least one pulse configuration rule. See also Fig. 6, step 610. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Gong and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Gong further teaches wherein, as the potential nerve stimulation, a nerve stimulation formed in all three spatial directions is approximated as a total nerve stimulation [¶0099-0100. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 5, Gong and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Gong further 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.].
Regarding claim 10, Gong and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Gong 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 [Fig. 13, step 1320-1325 and ¶0162-0165, wherein a gradient amplitude can be decreased until the threshold is met. See also Fig. 6, step 630. ¶0083 and ¶0167, see real-time. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Gong and Kim teach the limitations of claim 10, which this claim depends from.
Gong 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 [Fig. 13, step 1320-1325 and ¶0162-0165, wherein a gradient amplitude can be decreased until the threshold is met. See also Fig. 6, step 630. ¶0083 and ¶0167, see real-time. 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 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 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.
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.
Claims 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Gong, in view of previously cited Kim, in further view of Vu (US 2010/0308829).
Regarding claim 4, Gong and Kim teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Gong teaches wherein a potential nerve stimulation is approximated for each spatial direction and the total nerve stimulation is determined by an equation similar to:
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 [¶0099-0100. See also rest of reference.].
However, Gong and Kim are silent in teaching the same equation as
PNG
media_image1.png
38
180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
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 Gong and Kim with the teachings of Vu because both Gong 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 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 6-7 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Gong, in view of previously cited Kim, and in further view of Hebrank (“SAFE-Model - A New Method for Predicting Peripheral Nerve Stimulations in MRI”).
Regarding claim 6, Gong and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Gong and Kim are 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 Gong and Kim with the teachings of Hebrank because the Gong and Hebrank references are in the field of ensuring MR sequences do not exceed PNS thresholds for patient safety and because Gong teaches using a model 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, Gong, Kim, and Hebrank teaches the limitations of claim 6, which this claim depends from.
Gong 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 [Gong - ¶0012, ¶0120. 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 Vu and Hebrank because both references are in the field of ensuring MR sequences do not exceed PNS thresholds for patient safety and because Vu teaches using a model 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 Gong, in view of previously cited Kim, and in further view of Feiweier (US 2015/0285885).
Regarding claim 8, Gong and Kim teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Gong and Kim are silent in teaching wherein the limit value is specified with a safety factor.
Feiweier, 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 Gong and Kim with the teachings of Feiweier because both references are in the field of ensuring MR sequences do not exceed thresholds for patient safety and because Feiweier 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 [Feiweier -¶0060. 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
Prosecution Insights