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 12/18/2025, with respect to the previous 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 112 rejections has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the 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, 5, 7, 10-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kannengisser (US 2011/0080167).
Regarding claim 1, Kannengisser teaches a method for calibrating a movement detection method in a magnetic resonance apparatus, the method comprising:
positioning an examination object on a movement apparatus of the magnetic resonance apparatus, the examination object being an exterior body part of a patient [¶0030, wherein a human part of a body, such as a head, is positioned. ¶0024, wherein the body part is moved with a step shift motor. See also rest of reference.],
recording training data according to the movement detection method in a training phase with movement of the examination object by the movement apparatus during the training phase [¶0024, see series of intensity records in order to fill the calibration map. See also ¶0032-0040. See also rest of reference.], and
calibrating the movement detection method on the basis of the training data [¶0024, see series of intensity records in order to fill the calibration map. See also ¶0032-0040. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 5, Kannengisser further teaches wherein the exterior body part is a head of the patient [¶0030, wherein a human part of a body, such as a head, is positioned. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Kannengisser further teaches wherein recording the training data comprises recording signals, wherein the recorded signals comprise a pilot signal, modulated by a movement of the examination object, a magnetic resonance navigator signal [See navigator. See also rest of reference.], a noise correlation signal, a magnetic field signal captured by a pick-up coil, a laser signal, a radar signal, and/or an optical signal captured by a camera.
Regarding claim 10, Kannengisser teaches a magnetic resonance apparatus comprising:
a movement apparatus configured to move an examination object, the examination object comprising an exterior body part of a patient [¶0030, wherein a human part of a body, such as a head, is positioned. ¶0024, wherein the body part is moved with a step shift motor. See also rest of reference.],
a sensor configured to record calibration data for a movement detection method based on the movement of the examination object by the movement apparatus [¶0030-0040. See also rest of reference.], and
a processor configured to calibrate the movement detection method in a training phase with the recorded calibration data [¶0024, see series of intensity records in order to fill the calibration map. See also ¶0030-0040. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Kannengisser further teaches wherein the movement apparatus is part of a head coil [¶0030, wherein a human part of a body, such as a head, is positioned. ¶0024, wherein the body part is moved with a step shift motor. Fig. 1, wherein the head coil is used. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 12, Kannengisser further teaches wherein the movement apparatus comprises at least one actuator which generates the movement [¶0024, wherein the body part is moved with a step shift motor which is an actuator. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 14, Kannengisser further teaches wherein the processor comprises a calibration unit configured to receive the calibration data as training data, wherein the calibration unit is configured to calibrate the movement detection method on the basis of the training data [¶0024, see series of intensity records in order to fill the calibration map. See also ¶0030-0040. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 15, Kannengisser further teaches further comprising a movement controller configured to control the movement on the basis of movement control data, which movement is executed by the movement apparatus [¶0020-0021, wherein the reference displacement is selected to be 1 mm or 1 degree. Therefore, there is some type of control to select the desired amount of movement. See also ¶0030-0040. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 16, Kannengisser further teaches wherein the processor is configured to receive the movement control data and to calibrate the movement detection method on the basis of the movement control data [¶0020-0021, wherein the reference displacement is selected to be 1 mm or 1 degree. Therefore, there is some type of control to select the desired amount of movement. See also ¶0030-0040. 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 2-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Kannengisser, in view of Speier (US 2018/0353140).
Regarding claim 2, Kannengisser teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
However, Kannengisser is silent in teaching wherein the movement of the examination object by the movement apparatus has a periodic oscillation.
Speier, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the movement of the examination object by the movement apparatus has a periodic oscillation [See cardiac motion. 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 Kannengisser and Speier because both references are in the field of calibrating MRI apparatuses for patient motion [Speier - ¶0010, ¶0022. See also rest of reference.] and because Speier teaches a known patient motion is cardiac motion [Speier – cardiac motion].
Regarding claim 3, Kannengisser and Speier teach the limitations of claim 2, which this claim depends from.
Kannengisser is silent in teaching wherein the periodic oscillation has a frequency less than 20 Hz.
Speier further teaches wherein the periodic oscillation has a frequency less than 20 Hz [¶0064. 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 Kannengisser and Speier because both references are in the field of calibrating MRI apparatuses for patient motion [Speier - ¶0010, ¶0022. See also rest of reference.] and because Speier teaches a known patient motion is cardiac motion [Speier – cardiac motion].
Regarding claim 4, Kannengisser and Speier teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Kannengisser is silent in teaching wherein the periodic oscillation has a frequency greater than 0.001 Hz.
Speier further teaches wherein the periodic oscillation has a frequency greater than 0.001 Hz [¶0064, 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 Kannengisser and Speier because both references are in the field of calibrating MRI apparatuses for patient motion [Speier - ¶0010, ¶0022. See also rest of reference.] and because Speier teaches a known patient motion is cardiac motion [Speier – cardiac motion].
Regarding claim 6, Kannengisser teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Kannengisser is silent in teaching wherein the movement detection method comprises an interaction of a pilot signal with the moving examination object.
Speier further teaches wherein the movement detection method comprises an interaction of a pilot signal with the moving examination object [See pilot tone. 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 Kannengisser and Speier because both references are in the field of calibrating MRI apparatuses for patient motion [Speier - ¶0010, ¶0022. See also rest of reference.] and because Speier teaches a known patient motion detection method in MRI is to use pilot tones [Speier – pilot tone].
Regarding claim 8, Kannengisser and Speier teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Kannengisser is silent in teaching wherein the frequency is less than 10 Hz and greater than 0.1 Hz.
Speier further teaches wherein the frequency is less than 10 Hz and greater than 0.1 Hz [¶0064. 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 Kannengisser and Speier because both references are in the field of calibrating MRI apparatuses for patient motion [Speier - ¶0010, ¶0022. See also rest of reference.] and because Speier teaches a known patient motion is cardiac motion [Speier – cardiac motion].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Kannengisser, in view of Mostov (“Medical applications of shortwave FM radar: Remote monitoring of cardiac and respiratory motion”).
Regarding claim 9, Kannengisser teaches the limitations of claim 7, which this claim depends from.
Kannengisser is silent in teaching wherein the recorded signals comprise the radar signal, the radar signal comprising a shortwave radar signal.
Mostov further teaches wherein the recorded signals comprise the radar signal, the radar signal comprising a shortwave radar signal [See shortwave FM radar. 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 Kannengisser and Mostov because both references are in the field of measuring patient motion and because Mostov teaches a known patient motion is cardiac and respiratory motion [Mostov – cardiac and respiratory motion], which can be recorded with shortwave FM radar.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Kannengisser, in view of Barberi (US 2020/0400716).
Regarding claim 13, Kannengisser teaches the limitations of claim 12, which this claim depends from.
Kannengisser is silent in teaching wherein the actuator comprises at least one piezo element.
Barberi further teaches wherein the actuator comprises at least one piezo element [¶0041. 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 Kannengisser and Barberi because both references are in the field of patient motion in MRI and because Barberi teaches it is known to use a piezoelectric motor to provide motion [Barberi – ¶0041] and Kannengisser teaches using motorization.
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