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 11/28/2025, with respect to the previous 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the independent claim have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same reference combination applied in the prior rejection of record.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “an R wave” in line 15 should be “the R wave”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 7, and 10-12are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 2010/0264922), in view of Miyoshi (US 2009/0062640).
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus [Fig. 1, see MRI apparatus. See also rest of reference.] comprising:
an imaging unit that collects a nuclear magnetic resonance signal generated from a subject, and performs a navigation measurement for detecting a respiratory movement of the subject and a main measurement for generating an image of the subject [See ¶0013-0014, see navigator gating. See also rest of reference.];
a measurement controller that controls the imaging unit [Fig. 1, see sequence controller. See also rest of reference.];
a respiratory movement monitoring unit that monitors the respiratory movement of the subject by using a result of the navigation measurement, and transmits a respiratory movement monitoring signal, corresponding to an accept signal and a reject signal, to the measurement controller depending on whether a magnitude of the respiratory movement of the subject is inside or outside a preset gate window [Fig. 4 and ¶0024. See navigator. See also rest of reference.]; and
a cardiac period monitoring unit that monitors a cardiac period of the subject [¶0013-0014. See also rest of reference.], and
generates a gate signal at an R wave occurrence timing of the cardiac period, wherein the measurement controller consecutively executes the navigation measurement before and after the generation of the gate signal [Fig. 7 and ¶0028. See also rest of reference.], and controls the imaging unit to perform, when the gate signal has been received from the cardiac period monitoring unit, the main measurement after a preset delay time elapses in a case in which a most recent transition among transitions of the respiratory movement monitoring signal from the respiratory movement monitoring unit, which is generated during the navigation measurement before the reception of the gate signal, is a transition from the reject signal to the accept signal [Fig. 7 and ¶0028, See measurement sequence 713 happening after a delay after the ECG trigger and during acceptable window. See also rest of reference.], the main measurement being controlled using the transition of the respiratory movement monitoring signal [See Fig. 7, wherein the main measurement 713 is executed during the accept window, which is after the rejection period. See also rest of reference.].
However, Xu is silent in teaching the main measurement being performed multiple times in a respiratory period.
Miyoshi, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches main measurement being performed multiple times in a respiratory period [Fig. 12, wherein during one breathing period, Cβ2, multiple acquisitions, Pda, are performed. See also Fig. 3 and 5. 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 Xu and Miyoshi because both references are in the field of using ECG signals and breathing/respiratory to gate acquisitions for MRI. Further, Miyoshi teaches it is known in the art to perform multiple acquisitions during a breathing period to acquire sufficient data to form a MR image [Miyoshi - Fig. 3, 5 and 12. ¶0063-0064. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 2, Xu and Miyoshi teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Xu further teaches wherein the respiratory movement monitoring unit does not use a result of a navigation measurement most recent to the main measurement among the navigation measurements performed after the main measurement, for monitoring the respiratory movement [Fig. 7 and ¶0028. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Xu and Miyoshi teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Xu further teaches wherein the measurement controller adjusts a position of the main measurement following a navigation measurement performed in the delay time by using a respiratory movement position obtained by the navigation measurement [¶0013, Furthermore, the displacement information allows the excitation volume to be shifted by the determined respiratory displacement within the defined window in real-time (volume tracking). See also rest of reference.].
Xu is silent in teaching a slice position.
Miyoshi further teaches a slice position [See slice-select gradient. Therefore, a slice position is disclosed. 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 Xu and Miyoshi because both references are in the field of using ECG signals and breathing/respiratory to gate acquisitions for MRI. Further, Miyoshi teaches it is known in the art to perform multiple acquisitions during a breathing period to acquire sufficient data to form a MR image [Miyoshi - Fig. 3, 5 and 12. ¶0063-0064. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 4, Xu and Miyoshi teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Xu further teaches further comprising: a prior information setting unit that sets the gate window of the respiratory movement [¶0013, see defined window. See also rest of reference.], wherein the prior information setting unit sets the gate window at a position in a stable period of the respiratory movement [¶0013, see defined window. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 5, Xu and Miyoshi teach the limitations of claim 4, which this claim depends from.
Xu further teaches wherein the prior information setting unit sets the gate window so that a maximum value of the stable period of the respiratory movement is included [Fig. 7, wherein the max values of the respiratory movement is in the acceptable windows. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Xu and Miyoshi teach the limitations of claim 4, which this claim depends from.
Xu further teaches wherein the measurement performed by the imaging unit includes scanogram imaging for determining an imaging part of the subject, and the prior information setting unit determines a position of the gate window by using an image obtained by the scanogram imaging [See Figs. 2-3 and corresponding descriptions. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to this claim. Claim 10 is merely the method version of apparatus claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the same reasons for rejection as claim 3 also apply to this claim. Claim 11 is merely the method version of apparatus claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, the same reasons for rejection as claim 7 also apply to this claim. Claim 12 is merely the method version of apparatus claim 7.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Xu, in view of previously cited Miyoshi, in further view of Blumhagen (US 2015/0173642).
Regarding claim 6, Xu and Miyoshi teach the limitations of claim 4, which this claim depends from.
Xu and Miyoshi are silent in teaching wherein the prior information setting unit sets the gate window so that a position lower than a maximum value of the stable period of the respiratory movement is an upper limit value.
Blumhagen, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the prior information setting unit sets the gate window so that a position lower than a maximum value of the stable period of the respiratory movement is an upper limit value [Fig. 2 and ¶0043. 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 Xu and Miyoshi with the teachings of Blumhagen because all references are in the field of respiratory gating in MRI and because Blumhagen teaches it is known in the art to try setting threshold values for respiratory gating to less than maximum breathing position values [Blumhagen - Fig. 2 and ¶0043. See also rest of reference.].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Xu, in view of previously cited Miyoshi, and in further view of Shi (US 2021/0128076).
Regarding claim 8, Xu and Miyoshi teach the limitations of claim 4, which this claim depends from.
Xu and Miyoshi are silent in teaching further comprising: a UI unit that receives adjustment of a position of the gate window by a user, wherein the respiratory movement monitoring unit reflects the adjustment received by the UI unit to change the position of the gate window set by the prior information setting unit.
Shi, which is also in the field of MRI, further comprising: a UI unit that receives adjustment of a position of the gate window by a user [¶0117, see trigger delay, which would adjust the position of the acquisition window from a default position. See also rest of reference.], wherein the respiratory movement monitoring unit reflects the adjustment received by the UI unit to change the position of the gate window set by the prior information setting unit. [¶0117, see trigger delay, which would adjust the position of the acquisition window from a default position. 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 Xu and Miyoshi with the teachings of Shi because all references are in the field of respiratory gating in MRI and because Shi teaches it is known in the art to try setting gating parameters according to a user preference [Shi - ¶0117. See also rest of reference.].
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Xu, in view of Singh (“Improved Signal-to-Noise Ratio in Parallel Coronary Artery Magnetic Resonance Angiography using Graph Cuts based Bayesian Reconstruction”).
Regarding claim 9, Xu and Miyoshi teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Xu and Miyoshi are silent in teaching further comprising: a prior information setting unit that sets the delay time of the main measurement, wherein the prior information setting unit determines the delay time by using a cine image obtained by cine imaging on a region including a heart of the subject as a target.
Singh, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches further comprising: a prior information setting unit that sets the delay time of the main measurement, wherein the prior information setting unit determines the delay time by using a cine image obtained by cine imaging on a region including a heart of the subject as a target [Page 704, see the optimal delay time between the cardiac trigger and the period of minimal cardiac contraction was determined from a cine scout scan. 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 Xu and Miyoshi with the teachings of Singh because all references are in the field of gating in MRI and because Singh teaches it is known that the optimal delay time between the cardiac trigger and the period of minimal cardiac contraction was determined from a cine scout scan [Singh - Page 704. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 13, the same reasons for rejection as claim 9 also apply to this claim. Claim 13 is merely the method version of apparatus claim 9.
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, 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