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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9, 14 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 9, the recited “further comprising: checking, on the basis of the second motion data, whether the motion of the object under examination in the capture period corresponds to at least one predefined criterion; and when the check shows that the motion of an object under examination in the capture period does not correspond to the at least one predefined criterion, further first and second motion data if acquired and the motion detection method is calibrated using the further first and second motion data” is unclear, more specifically, the underlined portion. The examiner is unsure if the claim is reciting further first and second motion data is acquired or not. The “if” renders the claim unclear. The examiner was unable to apply art to the identified limitations. Clarification is required.
With respect to claims 14 and 15, “the at least one sensor” lacks proper antecedent basis. To further prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the claims such that they depend from claim 12 for proper antecedent basis. However, clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 13, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ludwig et al. (Pilot tone–based motion correction for prospective respiratory compensated cardiac cine MRI).
With respect to claim 1, Ludwig et al. teaches a computer-implemented method for calibrating a motion detection method that is configured to detect motion of an object under examination during a magnetic resonance measurement by a magnetic resonance apparatus (as read in 1. Introduction: Here, we present a novel respiratory motion-correction approach (ie, PT-MOCO) that uses the PT 21,22 to perform prospective slice tracking for cine MRI followed by in-plane k-space-based motion correction. A short (≈ 60-second) calibration scan is used before the cine acquisition to calibrate the PT to the actual respiratory-induced heart motion), the method comprising: capturing, using the motion detection method, first motion data of the object (i.e. patient) under examination in a capture period (as disclosed on page 2405, left column, lines 1-3, a series of sagittal images is acquired together with the PT, capturing several breathing cycles and page 240, step (A)); capturing, using at least one other motion detection method, second motion data of the object under examination in the capture period (step C which conducts a calibration scan, different from the PT scan); and calibrating the motion detection method using the first motion data and the second motion data (as step E using the motion model and the PT, in plane shifts are performed to calibrate the motion detection method).
With respect to claim 17, Ludwig et al. teaches a non-transitory computer implemented storage medium, including machine-readable instructions (steps a-e) stored therein for calibrating a motion detection method (as discussed in claim 1) that is configured to detect motion of an object (patient) under examination during a magnetic resonance measurement by a magnetic resonance apparatus (MRI), the machine-readable instructions when executed by at least one processor (as indirectly taught), cause the processor (as indirectly taught) to perform the steps rejected in claim 1
With respect to claim 2, Ludwig et al. teaches the computer-implemented method wherein calibrating the motion detection method using the first motion data and the second motion data (i.e. as Ludwig et al. teaches the respiratory and induced cardiac motion data as being used to calibrate the motion detection method) comprises: using the second motion data (the motion data collected in step c; page 2406) to identify at least one disturbance period (as shown in Fig. 7A, between 50 and 100 seconds) in the capture period in which the motion of the object under examination (patient) exhibits a disturbance (i.e. a heart motion), for example deviation (as shown in Fig. 7A), wherein the motion detection method is calibrated taking into account the at least one disturbance period (as disclosed in Fig. 6, [t]he first 60 RR cycles were used to calibrate the PT to the respiratory-induced heart motion).
With respect to claim 3, Ludwig et al. teaches the computer-implemented method wherein identifying the at least one disturbance period (between 50 and 100 seconds) involves identifying at least one motion deviation (shown by the arrows in Fig. 6B and 7A) based on the second motion data (i.e. the respiratory movement).
With respect to claim 4, Ludwig et al. teaches the computer-implemented method wherein calibrating the motion detection method using the first motion data and the second motion data comprises: modifying the first motion data using the second motion data by removing the first motion data within the at least one disturbance period (as Ludwig et al. teaches subtracting of the PT); and calibrating the motion detection method using the modified motion data (as the calibration involves using the modified PT removed motion data to calibrate the motion detection method).
With respect to claim 8, Ludwig et al. teaches the computer-implemented method wherein the motion detection method comprises an interaction of a pilot tone signal with the moving object under examination (as read in 2.1 Pilot Tone, page 2404).
With respect to claim 9, Ludwig et al. teaches the computer-implemented method further comprising: checking, on the basis of the second motion data, whether the motion of the object under examination in the capture period corresponds to at least one predefined criterion (as Ludwig et al. teaches using coefficients to determine motion models, page 2405, left column, lines 1-10). Note: the examiner was unable to apply art to “and when the check shows that the motion of an object under examination in the capture period does not correspond to the at least one predefined criterion, further first and second motion data if acquired and the motion detection method is calibrated using the further first and second motion data” based on the above 112(b) rejection.
With respect to claim 10, Ludwig et al. teaches the computer-implemented method wherein the second motion data (PT) is captured using at least one sensor which is co-moved by the motion of the object under examination.
With respect to claim 13, Ludwig et al. teaches the computer-implemented method wherein the motion comprises a chest motion of the object under examination (as read in 1. Introduction).
With respect to claim 16, Ludwig et al. teaches a magnetic resonance apparatus (as read in 1. Introduction), comprising: a local coil configured to use a motion detection method to capture first motion data of an object under examination in a capture period (as in 2.1 Pilot tone discloses patient motion leads a coil-dependent variation which as disclosed on page 2405, left column, lines 1-3, a series of sagittal images is acquired together with the PT, capturing several breathing cycles and page 240, step (A))), the local coil (of the disclosed MRI) further configured to use at least one other motion detection method to capture second motion data of the object under examination in the capture period (as read in 1. Introduction: Here, we present a novel respiratory motion-correction approach (ie, PT-MOCO) that uses the PT 21,22 to perform prospective slice tracking for cine MRI followed by in-plane k-space-based motion correction. A short (≈ 60-second) calibration scan is used before the cine acquisition to calibrate the PT to the actual respiratory-induced heart motion); wherein the motion detection method is calibrated using the first motion data and the second motion data (as step E using the motion model and the PT, in plane shifts are performed to calibrate the motion detection method).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig et al. (Pilot tone–based motion correction for prospective respiratory compensated cardiac cine MRI) in view of Bacher et al. (2022/0291321).
With respect to claim 5, Ludwig et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1 but remains silent regarding the computer-implemented method wherein the motion of the object under examination comprises at least two motion components (i.e. respiratory and heart movements), wherein calibrating the motion detection method involves calibrating a BSS algorithm for separating the at least two motion components.
Bacher et al. teaches a similar method that includes a BSS algorithm for separating the at least two motion components [0074].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the calibration method to includes the BSS algorithm for separating the two motion components, as taught by Bacher et al., because Bacher et al. teaches such a modification allows the method to separate hidden, original signals from a mixed set of recorded data without needing prior knowledge about how the signals were mixed [0011] [0021], thereby aiding in noise reduction, signal clarity, and data recovery.
With respect to claim 6, Ludwig et al. teaches the modified computer-implemented method wherein the BSS algorithm comprises an ICA algorithm and/or a PCA algorithm (as Bacher et al. teaches the BSS includes an independent component analysis algorithm or a dependent component analysis algorithm or a principal component analysis algorithm or a stationary subspace analysis algorithm; [0016] of Ludwig et al.).
With respect to claim 7, Ludwig et al. teaches the modified computer-implemented wherein the at least two motion components comprise a cardiac motion and a respiratory motion of the object under examination (as read in 1. Introduction of Ludwig et al. provided in the rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig et al. (Pilot tone–based motion correction for prospective respiratory compensated cardiac cine MRI) in view of Forman et al. (10,495,710).
With respect to claim 10, Ludwig et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection but remains silent regarding the second motion data is captured using at least one sensor which is co-moved by the motion of the object under examination.
Forman et al. teaches a similar method where motion data is captured using at least one sensor (26; Fig. 8) which is co-moved by a motion (i.e. myocardial muscle movement) of an object (15) under examination (Col. 7 lines 8-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method to include the sensor taught by Forman et al. because Forman et al. teaches such a modification allows for an improved generation of time-resolved images of an examination object, which executes a cyclical movement, thereby improving the overall accuracy of Ludwig et al..
With respect to claim 11, Ludwig et al. teaches the modified computer-implemented method wherein the motion comprises a chest motion of the object under examination (Col. 7 lines 8-13 of Forman et al.).
With respect to claim 12, Ludwig et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection but remains silent regarding wherein the second motion data is captured using at least one sensor which is disposed in or on a component of the magnetic resonance apparatus that is attached to the object under examination and that is co-moved by the motion of the object under examination.
Forman et al. teaches a similar method where motion data is captured using at least one sensor (26; Fig. 8) which is disposed in a magnetic resonance apparatus (10) that is attached to an object (15) under examination and that is co-moved by a motion (i.e. myocardial muscle movement) of the object (15) under examination (Col. 7 lines 8-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method to include the sensor taught by Forman et al. because Forman et al. teaches such a modification allows for an improved generation of time-resolved images of an examination object, which executes a cyclical movement, thereby improving the overall accuracy of Ludwig et al..
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig et al. (Pilot tone–based motion correction for prospective respiratory compensated cardiac cine MRI) in view of Forman et al. (10,495,710), as applied to claim 12, further in view of Ludwig et al. (2017/0248665).
With respect to claim 14, Ludwig et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection but remains silent regarding wherein the at least one sensor comprises a magnetic field sensor, an accelerometer, or a gyro sensor.
Ludwig et al. (‘665) teaches a magnetic field sensor (50).
Because both Forman et al. and Ludwig et al. teach sensors attached to a patient, substituting the sensor from Forman et al. with the magnetic field sensor of Ludwig et al. to achieve the predictable results of sensing characteristics of the medical procedure would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, such a modification ensures the most arcuate of results during the procedure.
With respect to claim 15, Ludwig et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection but remains silent regarding wherein the at least one sensor comprises a plurality of sensors, each of which is based on a different physical interaction for detecting the motion of the object under examination.
Ludwig et al. (‘665) teaches a plurality of sensors (61-63, 54 and 52) each of which is based on a different physical interaction for detecting the motion of the object under examination (as each sense different physical interactions like magnetic field strength and orientation as the object moves with the MRI).
Because both Forman et al. and Ludwig et al. teach sensors attached to a patient, substituting the sensor from Forman et al. with the plurality of sensors taught in Ludwig et al. to achieve the predictable results of sensing characteristics of the medical procedure would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, such a modification ensures the most arcuate of results during the procedure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kassai et al. (2014/0002082) teaches a similar method that applies a gradient magnetic field for controlling a sound in synchronization with a signal representing a respiratory body motion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights