DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1,5, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN-105988098-A) in view of Steimel (CN-104101852-A).
Regarding claim 1
Wei discloses
A method for operating an imaging modality of a magnetic resonance system (Background Technology, ¶ 1) by obtaining image signals in a large number of repetitions of an MR sequence (Invention Contents, ¶ 1),
wherein in one of the repetitions (Invention Contents, ¶ 1), the method comprises:
Wei does not disclose
“altering a strength of a gradient field in a ramp portion;
keeping constant the strength of the gradient field in a constant portion adjoining the ramp portion;
carrying out an HF (high frequency) pulse in the constant portion; and
at a beginning of the constant portion, waiting a specifiable decay duration until the HF pulse is carried out”.
Steimel, however, teaches
altering a strength of a gradient field in a ramp portion ([0060]—[0063], the ramp time is limited to “lower”, which is altering the strength);
keeping constant the strength of the gradient field in a constant portion adjoining the ramp portion ([0061]);
carrying out an HF (high frequency) pulse in the constant portion ([0060]); and
at a beginning of the constant portion, waiting a specifiable decay duration until the HF pulse is carried out ([0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “altered strength of gradient ramp” as taught by Steimel in the method of Wei.
The justification for this modification would be to keep the SAR within acceptable limits.
Regarding claim 5
Wei in view of Steimel teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Steimel, applied to claim 5, further teaches
wherein the constant portion of the repetition is configured temporally longer than the ramp portion ([0057], it is inherent in MRI that the flat part of the gradient is larger than the up and down ramps).
Regarding claim 13
Wei in view of Steimel teach hardware to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1,
Steimel, applied to claim 13, further teaches
A magnetic resonance system with an imaging modality, which has a control apparatus that is configured to control the imaging modality to carry out a method above ([0055]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN-105988098-A) in view of Steimel (CN-104101852-A) in view of Sit Ji-Jon (WO-2018126062-A1).
Regarding claim 2
Wei in view of Steimel teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Wei in view of Steimel do not disclose
“wherein the decay duration is determined automatically by an algorithm based on parameters of the imaging modality”.
Sit Ji-Jon, however, teaches
wherein the decay duration is determined automatically by an algorithm based on parameters of the imaging modality ([0248]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “decay duration/algorithm” as taught by Sit Ji-Jon in the method of Wei in view of Steimel.
The justification for this modification would be to keep the eddy currents within safe limits.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN-105988098-A) in view of Steimel (CN-104101852-A) in view of Kohler (DE-102018200239-B4).
Regarding claim 3
Wei in view of Steimel teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Wei in view of Steimel do not teach
“wherein the decay duration is in a range from 1 μs to 5 ms”.
Kohler, however, teaches
wherein the decay duration is in a range from 1 μs to 5 ms (Description, ¶ 1—3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “decay duration of 1us to 5ms) as taught by Kohler in the method of Wei in view of Steimel.
The justification for this modification would be to keep the eddy currents within acceptable limits.
Regarding claim 4
Wei in view of Steimel teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Wei in view of Steimel do not teach
“wherein the decay duration is in a range from 10 μs to 2 ms”.
Kohler, however, teaches
wherein the decay duration is in a range from 10 μs to 2 ms (Description, ¶ 1—3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “decay duration of 10 us to 2ms) as taught by Kohler in the method of Wei in view of Steimel.
The justification for this modification would be to keep the eddy currents within acceptable limits.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN-105988098-A) in view of Steimel (CN-104101852-A) in view of
Dyvorne et al. (US-20210048498-A1).
Regarding claim 6
Wei in view of Steimel teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Wei in view of Steimel do not disclose
“wherein the strength of the gradient field is at least occasionally above 10 mT/m”.
Dyvorne, however, teaches
wherein the strength of the gradient field is at least occasionally above 10 mT/m ([0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “gradient field strength limits above 10 mT/m” as taught by Dyvorne in the method of Wei in view of Steimel.
The justification for this modification would be to keep maximum gradient amplitudes within acceptable limits.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN-105988098-A) in view of Steimel (CN-104101852-A) in view of Sharma (US-20210141034-A1).
Regarding claim 7
Wei in view of Steimel teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Wei in view of Steimel do not teach
“wherein the strength of the gradient field is at least occasionally above 20 mT/m”.
Sharma, however, teaches
wherein the strength of the gradient field is at least occasionally above 20 mT/m ([0127]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “gradient strength above 20mT/m” as taught by Sharma in the method of Wei in view of Steimel.
The justification for this modification would be to improve the spatial resolution of the MRI image.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN-105988098-A) in view of Steimel (CN-104101852-A) in view of Gao (US-20200341097-A1).
Regarding claim 10
Wei in view of Steimel teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Wei in view of Steimel do not teach
“wherein following the HF pulse, a readout procedure takes place”.
Gao, however, teaches
wherein following the HF pulse, a readout procedure takes place ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “readout procedure following HF pulse” as taught by Gao in the method of Wei in view of Steimel.
The justification for this modification would be to correct for motion corruption ([0013], Gao).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN-105988098-A) in view of Steimel (CN-104101852-A) in view of Zeller et al. (US-20200025850-A1).
Regarding claim 14
Wei in view of Steimel teach hardware to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1,
Wei in view of Steimel do not explicitly teach
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a computer program which, when executed in a control apparatus of an imaging modality of a magnetic resonance system, carries out the method as claimed above”.
Zeller, however, teaches
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a computer program which, when executed in a control apparatus of an imaging
modality of a magnetic resonance system, carries out the method as claimed above ([0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “computer-readable medium” as taught by Zeller in the method of Wei in view of Steimel.
The justification for this modification would be to a permanent way to store the MRI machine program in case of accidental power-down.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 & 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein a repetition duration of each repetition of the sequence is prolonged, in comparison with a reference repetition duration of a predetermined reference sequence, by the decay duration”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 9
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein a repetition duration of each repetition of the sequence equals a reference repetition duration of a predetermined reference sequence, and a ramp duration of the ramp portion of each repetition of the sequence is shortened, in comparison with a ramp duration of a reference ramp portion of the predetermined reference sequence, by the decay duration”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 11
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein the image signals in a central region of the k-space are acquired by way of a Cartesian acquisition portion of a sequence and outside the central region by way of a radial acquisition portion of the sequence, and wherein in the Cartesian acquisition portion, corresponding image signals are obtained with a method as claimed in claim 10 following a first decay duration and, in the radial acquisition portion, corresponding image signals are obtained with a method as claimed in claim 10 after a second decay duration which is shorter than the first”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 12
The claim is allowable due to its allowance on object-to claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK WENDEROTH whose telephone number is (571)270-1945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m. - 4 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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/Frederick Wenderoth/
Examiner, Art Unit 2852