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 filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Le Bihan does not disclose or suggest processing circuitry configured such that the shear maps are obtained using a shear modulus calculated respectively corresponding to each of the plurality of directions in which the first and second MPGs are applied and substituting, with respect to each of the directions in which the first and second MPGs are applied, the attenuation rate as recited in Claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Le Bihan teaches the shear maps are obtained using a shear modulus calculated respectively corresponding to each of the plurality of directions in which the first and second MPGs are applied and substituting, with respect to each of the directions in which the first and second MPGs are applied [¶0017, ¶0031-0033, ¶0044, ¶0208, ¶0216. See claims 8, 10, and 16, wherein P1 and P2 are different spatial orientations, which correspond to different directions. See also Cm. Therefore, the signatures are taken with respect to different directions. See also rest of reference which teaches b-values and MPGs, and spatial orientations. See also rest of reference which teaches shear modulus.].
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “shear maps”) are not recited in the rejected independent claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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, 7, 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ota (“Diffusion–Based Virtual MR Elastography of the Liver: Can It Be Extended beyond Liver Fibrosis?”).
Regarding claim 1, Ota teaches a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured:
to obtain a plurality of diffusion weighted images including a plurality of first diffusion weighted images taken while a first Motion Probing Gradient (MPG) is applied in a plurality of directions and a plurality of second diffusion weighted images taken while a second MPG having a b value of a different magnitude from that of a b value calculated for the first MPG is applied in the plurality of directions [Section 2.4, wherein there are a plurality of first and second images because images are performed on “slices”. Further, each image is acquired with a specific b-value and diffusion gradients played out on each axis (x, y, and z). Therefore, each image corresponds to a diffusion weighted image with MPGs applied in a plurality of directions. See also b values of 0 and 800 s/mm2. See also rest of reference.];
to calculate an attenuation rate (SLKb/SHKb) of signal intensities with respect to each of the plurality of directions in which the first MPG and the second MPG is applied, from signal intensity (SLKb) of the diffusion weighted image taken while the first MPG is applied and signal intensity (SHKb) of the diffusion weighted image taken while the second MPG is applied [See equations 1-3, wherein S0 corresponds to the signal intensity of the b=0 and wherein diffusion gradients are applied in the x, y, and z directions and S800 corresponds to the signal intensity of the b=800 and wherein diffusion gradients are applied in the x, y, and z directions. See also rest of reference.]; and
to calculate a shear modulus respectively corresponding to each of the plurality of directions in which the first MPG and the second MPG is applied [See equation 3, wherein a shear modulus is calculated using the attenuation ratio and calibration coefficients, wherein the attenuation ratio is based on signals that are acquired with diffusion gradients applied in the x, y, and z directions. See also rest of reference.], by using a relational expression which expresses a relation between an attenuation rate, a shear modulus and a calibration coefficient obtained on a basis of an experiment or experience [See equation 3. See also rest of reference.], and substituting, with respect to each of the plurality of directions in which the first MPG and the second MPG is applied, the attenuation rate in the relational expression with the calculated attenuation rate [See equation 3, wherein a shear modulus is calculated using the attenuation ratio and calibration coefficients, wherein the attenuation ratio is based on signals that are acquired with diffusion gradients applied in the x, y, and z directions. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Ota further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to further display, on a basis of the shear modulus calculated with respect to each of the plurality of directions, information indicating magnitudes and anisotropy of the shear moduli [See section 2.4-2.5 and Fig. 2. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Ota further teaches the processing circuitry is configured to display information about the shear moduli calculated in correspondence with the plurality of directions, so as to be superimposed together in a single image [See section 2.4-2.5 and Fig. 2, wherein the shear moduli represent each axis (x, y, and z). See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 15, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to this claim. Claim 15 is merely the method version of apparatus claim 1.
Supplemental 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.
At least independent claims 1, 7, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le Bihan (US 2018/0045802).
Regarding claim 1, Le Bihan teaches a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured:
to obtain a plurality of diffusion weighted images including a plurality of first diffusion weighted images taken while a first Motion Probing Gradient (MPG) is applied in a plurality of directions and a plurality of second diffusion weighted images taken while a second MPG having a b value of a different magnitude from that of a b value calculated for the first MPG is applied in the plurality of directions [Abstract, ¶0032-0033. See claims 8, 10, and 16, wherein P1 and P2 are different spatial orientations, which correspond to different directions. See also Cm. Therefore, the signatures are taken with respect to different directions. See also rest of reference which teaches b-values and MPGs, and spatial orientations.];
to calculate an attenuation rate (SLKb/SHKb) of signal intensities with respect to each of the plurality of directions in which the first MPG and the second MPG is applied, from signal intensity (SLKb) of the diffusion weighted image taken while the first MPG is applied and signal intensity (SHKb) of the diffusion weighted image taken while the second MPG is applied [¶0017, ¶0031-0033, ¶0044, ¶0208, ¶0216. See claims 8, 10, and 16, wherein P1 and P2 are different spatial orientations, which correspond to different directions. See also Cm. Therefore, the signatures are taken with respect to different directions. See also rest of reference which teaches b-values and MPGs, and spatial orientations. See also rest of reference which teaches attenuation.]; and
to calculate a shear modulus respectively corresponding to each of the plurality of directions in which the first MPG and the second MPG is applied, by using a relational expression which expresses a relation between an attenuation rate, a shear modulus and a calibration coefficient obtained on a basis of an experiment or experience, and substituting, with respect to each of the plurality of directions in which the first MPG and the second MPG is applied, the attenuation rate in the relational expression with the calculated attenuation rate [¶0017, ¶0031-0033, ¶0044, ¶0208, ¶0216. See claims 8, 10, and 16, wherein P1 and P2 are different spatial orientations, which correspond to different directions. See also Cm. Therefore, the signatures are taken with respect to different directions. See also rest of reference which teaches b-values and MPGs, and spatial orientations. See also rest of reference which teaches shear modulus.].
Regarding claim 7, Le Bihan further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to further display, on a basis of the shear modulus calculated with respect to each of the plurality of directions, information indicating magnitudes and anisotropy of the shear moduli [Abstract, wherein signature indices are displayed. See SCdist signature index which depends on Cm which is dependent on anisotropy. Therefore, anisotropy is disclosed. See ¶0191, wherein images of shear stiffness are acquired. See also rest of reference which teaches shear.].
Regarding claim 15, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to this claim. Claim 15 is merely the method version of apparatus claim 1.
At least independent claims 1 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le Bihan II (“Diffusion and intravoxel incoherent Motion MR imaging based Virtual elastography: A Hypothesis-generating Study in the Liver1”).
Regarding claim 1, Le Bihan II teaches a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured:
to obtain a plurality of diffusion weighted images including a plurality of first diffusion weighted images taken while a first Motion Probing Gradient (MPG) is applied in a plurality of directions and a plurality of second diffusion weighted images taken while a second MPG having a b value of a different magnitude from that of a b value calculated for the first MPG is applied in the plurality of directions [Page 611, wherein there are a plurality of first and second images because images are performed on “sections” that are part of a full field of view. Further, each image is acquired with a specific b-value and diffusion gradients played out on each axis (x, y, and z). Therefore, each image corresponds to a diffusion weighted image with MPGs applied in a plurality of directions. See also b values between 0 and 1500 s/mm2. See also rest of reference.];
to calculate an attenuation rate (SLKb/SHKb) of signal intensities with respect to each of the plurality of directions in which the first MPG and the second MPG is applied, from signal intensity (SLKb) of the diffusion weighted image taken while the first MPG is applied and signal intensity (SHKb) of the diffusion weighted image taken while the second MPG is applied [See equations 1-5, wherein SLKB corresponds to the signal intensity of the low b value and wherein diffusion gradients are applied in the x, y, and z directions and SHKb corresponds to the signal intensity of the high b-value and wherein diffusion gradients are applied in the x, y, and z directions. See also rest of reference.]; and
to calculate a shear modulus respectively corresponding to each of the plurality of directions in which the first MPG and the second MPG is applied [See equations 4-5, wherein a shear modulus is calculated using the attenuation ratio and calibration coefficients, wherein the attenuation ratio is based on signals that are acquired with diffusion gradients applied in the x, y, and z directions. See also rest of reference.], by using a relational expression which expresses a relation between an attenuation rate, a shear modulus and a calibration coefficient obtained on a basis of an experiment or experience [See equations 4-5. See also rest of reference.], and substituting, with respect to each of the plurality of directions in which the first MPG and the second MPG is applied, the attenuation rate in the relational expression with the calculated attenuation rate [See equations 4-5, wherein a shear modulus is calculated using the attenuation ratio and calibration coefficients, wherein the attenuation ratio is based on signals that are acquired with diffusion gradients applied in the x, y, and z directions. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 15, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to this claim. Claim 15 is merely the method version of apparatus claim 1.
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 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Ota, in view of Li (CN 115105049 A. For citations, see English translation provided by Espacenet attached to the previous office action office action.).
Regarding claim 8, Ota teaches the limitation of claim 7, which this claim depends from.
Ota further teaches shear moduli [See equations 1-3. See also rest of reference.].
However, Ota is silent in teaching wherein the processing circuitry is configured to display information indicating, at a same time, both the magnitudes and the anisotropy of the elastic moduli.
Li, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to display information indicating, at a same time, both the magnitudes and the anisotropy of the elastic moduli [n0032-0033, n0064, n0094-0095 and Fig. 2. Parametric maps show intensity values for anisotropy of the elasticity of the tissue, such as white matter. 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 Ota and Li because both references are in the field of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and because Li teaches it is known in the art to display different MRE information to an operator of the MR device.
Claims 9-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Ota, in view of Abe (JP 2012143315 A. For citations, see English translation provided by Espacenet attached to the previous office action.).
Regarding claim 9, Ota teaches the limitation of claim 7, which this claim depends from.
Ota further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to display a map in which magnitudes are expressed with darkness levels [See Fig. 2. See also rest of reference.].
However, Ota is silent in teaching wherein the processing circuitry is configured to display a color map in which magnitudes of the shear moduli are expressed with darkness levels of a color.
Abe, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to display a color map in which magnitudes of the shear moduli are expressed with darkness levels of a color [¶0003, wherein shear information is obtained. ¶0032-0035, wherein color maps are disclosed. See Fig. 3. 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 Ota and Abe because both references are in the field of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) and because Abe teaches it is known in the art to use color maps [Abe - ¶0032-0035] and this feature would help differentiate different MRE values to a use.
Regarding claim 10, Ota teaches the limitation of claim 7, which this claim depends from.
However, Ota is silent in teaching wherein the processing circuitry is configured to display a color map in which the anisotropy of the shear moduli is expressed by using different colors.
Abe, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches w wherein the processing circuitry is configured to display a color map in which the anisotropy of the shear moduli is expressed by using different colors [¶0003, wherein shear information is obtained. ¶0032-0035, wherein color maps are disclosed. ¶0009-0010, ¶0027-0028, ¶0034 disclose anisotropy values. See Fig. 3. 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 Ota and Abe because both references are in the field of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) because Abe teaches it is known in the art to use color maps [Abe - ¶0032-0035] and this feature would help differentiate different MRE values to a use.
Regarding claim 16, Ota and Abe teaches the limitation of claim 10, which this claim depends from.
Ota further teaches anisotropy of the shear modulus calculated for each of the plurality of directions in which the first MPG and the second MPG is applied [See equation 3, wherein a shear modulus is calculated using the attenuation ratio and calibration coefficients, wherein the attenuation ratio is based on signals that are acquired with diffusion gradients applied in the x, y, and z directions. See also rest of reference.].
However, Ota is silent in teaching wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate and display the color map in which the parameter is expressed for each voxel by using different colors.
Abe further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate and display the color map in which the anisotropy of the shear moduli is expressed for each voxel by using different colors [¶0003, wherein shear information is obtained. ¶0032-0035, wherein color maps are disclosed. ¶0009-0010, ¶0027-0028, ¶0034 disclose anisotropy values. See Fig. 3. 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 Ota and Abe because both references are in the field of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) because Abe teaches it is known in the art to use color maps [Abe - ¶0032-0035] and this feature would help differentiate different MRE values to a use.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Ota, in view of Sugiyama (US 2010/0106002).
Regarding claim 12, Ota teaches the limitation of claim 7, which this claim depends from.
Ota further teaches the magnitudes and the anisotropy of the shear moduli [See section 2.4-2.5 and Fig. 2. See also rest of reference.].
However, Ota is silent in teaching wherein the processing circuitry is configured to switch, in accordance with an instruction from an operator, display between information indicating both the parameters at a same time and information indicating only one of the parameters.
Sugiyama, which is also in field of MRI, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to switch, in accordance with an instruction from an operator, display between information indicating both the parameters at a same time and information indicating only one of the parameters [See Fig. 9 and ¶0102, wherein one parameter can be displayed or can be superposed. 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 Ota and Sugiyama because both references are in the field of diffusion magnetic resonance imaging and because both references teach displaying images and Sugiyama teaches it is known in the art for the user to manipulate what information is displayed [Sugiyama – Fig. 9].
Regarding claim 13, Ota teaches the limitation of claim 7, which this claim depends from.
Ota further teaches the magnitudes and the anisotropy of the shear moduli [See section 2.4-2.5 and Fig. 2. See also rest of reference.].
However, Ota is silent in teaching wherein the processing circuitry is configured to segment and display the information indicating the parameters, in correspondence with compositions of biological tissue.
Sugiyama, which is also in field of MRI, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to segment and display the information indicating the parameters, in correspondence with compositions of biological tissue [See segmentation disclosed throughout reference. ¶0090-0091, ¶0105-0106. Fig. 10. 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 Ota and Sugiyama because both references are in the field of diffusion magnetic resonance imaging and because both references teach displaying images and Sugiyama teaches it is known in the art for the user to manipulate what information is displayed [Sugiyama – Fig. 9-10].
Regarding claim 14, Ota and Sugiyama teach the limitation of claim 13, which this claim depends from.
Ota further teaches wherein the biological tissue is one of a muscle fiber, a tendon fiber, and a brain tissue [See Section 4 which discloses breast and brain imaging. See also rest of reference.].
Conclusion
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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 2858
Prosecution Insights