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 § 102
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) 1-12, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2018/0353139 to Speier et al. “Speier”.
As for Claims 1, 10, 17 and 19, Speier discloses an MRI system and method for generating image data of a moving part of the human body (e.g. heart) with a triggered acquisition (Abstract). Speier discloses steps to receive by a control unit a raw data signal acquired by a magnetic resonance receiver coil assembly (Paragraphs [0018] and [0021]); extracting a pilot tone raw signal from the raw signal (Paragraph [0022]); extract a subsequent pilot tone signal (PT-CC) from the raw pilot tone signal which is considered to read on at least one first motion component from the pilot tone raw signal in its broadest reasonable interpretation (Paragraph [0023]); determine a first motion signal based on the PT-CC (Paragraph [0024]); determining activity indicator values (e.g. physiological phases; Paragraphs [0024]-[0025]) in order to determine a predicted activity indicator value and a motion pattern for triggered acquisition (Paragraphs [0026], [0030], [0032] and [0039]). In one embodiment, Speier utilizes the slope of a first motion signal to determine trigger points (Paragraphs [0070], [0072]).
As for Claims 2-3, Speier discloses where the first and/or second derivative of the filtered (e.g. cleaned up; Paragraph [0082]) movement signal are calculated an automatically analyzed to extract time points for triggering (Paragraphs [0045]-[0046]). Examiner notes the maximum derivatives are derived from a plot of amplitude which includes a maximum and/or mean value of the motion signal of the first current motion period in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding Claim 4, Speier discloses wherein the system’s control unit can use a filter trained or adapted to the cardiac component derived from a calibration portion (Paragraph [0035]). In addition, template base feature detection or data from a current or previous scan may be used (Paragraph [0067]).
With respect to Claim 5, Speier discloses identifying characteristics of the motion patterns (e.g. phases) (Paragraph [0042]) and normalizing phases to reference phases (Paragraph [0082]).
As for Claims 6-8, Speier discloses utilizing a threshold-based triggering to approximate trigger points (Paragraphs [0046] and [0093]). Examiner notes that use of a threshold would include a step of comparing in order to determine activity indicators for triggered acquisition of subsequent motion periods as claimed in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
With respect to Claim 9, Speier’s trigger point for a subsequent motion period is based on a function of length (e.g. time length) in the plotted movement signals (Figs. 2; Paragraphs [0093]).
Regarding Claims 11-12, Speier discloses assigning at least two phases the PT-CC components (Paragraphs [0023]-[0025]) which is considered to read on at least two motion components phase shifted from one another in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speier in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0377051 to Bacher et al. “Bacher”.
As for Claim 13, Speier discloses an MRI system and method for determining motion patterns used to trigger acquisition as described above. While the PT-CC includes a plurality of motion components phase shifted from one another, it is not clear if the second first motion parameter is processed by shifting the phase of the first motion component as claimed.
Bacher teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to MRI triggered acquisitions using pilot tones (Abstract; Paragraph [0039]) where phase offsets to a reference signal are considered to avoid aliasing of high frequency noise (Paragraph [0042]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have considered phase shifted motion components as described by Bacher in order to avoid aliasing and enhance the accuracy of the acquisition trigger.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16, 18 and 20 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. Claims 14-16, 18 and 20 are considered to be allowable over the prior art of record as the art of record fails to disclose all the correcting steps as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As for the prior art rejections of Claims 1, 17 and 19, Applicant argues Speier does not teach the claimed step of "determining, by the control unit, a determined activity indicator value of the current first motion period, depending on a slope of the respective first motion signal of the current first motion period" "determining, by the control unit, a predicted activity indicator value of the subsequent first motion period based on the determined activity indicator value of the current first motion period" and "identifying, by the control unit, the first motion pattern of the subsequent first motion period as a function of the predicted activity indicator value of the subsequent first motion period” because Speier’s continuously changing spatial positions or instantaneous physiological phase within a single cycle, such as systole and diastole in Speier are not equivalent to Applicant’s defined motion patterns in the specification (REMARKS, Pages 9-10). Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes while claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (MPEP 2111.01). Furthermore, Applicant’s definition of a motion pattern that “may” relate to breathing (REMARKS, Page 10) is not considered a special definition that may depart from common usage understood by those skilled in the art.
Applicant also argues the claims require deriving a single activity indicator value for the entire current period based on a slope (e.g. extracting the maximum amplitude of the derivative of the respiratory signal to represent the depth of the current breath) and the Speier’s use of slope is used in a different context (REMARKS, Page 11). Examiner respectfully notes the claim fails to require a step of extracting the maximum amplitude of the derivative of the respiratory signal to represent the depth of the current breath. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER L COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approximately 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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER L COOK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights