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 with respect to the previous prior art rejections of the independent 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, 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 also rest of reference which teaches b-values and MPGs.];
to calculate an attenuation rate (SLKb/SHKb) signal intensities with respect to each of the plurality of directions, 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 also rest of reference which teaches attenuation.]; and
to calculate a shear modulus respectively corresponding to each of the plurality of directions 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, the attenuation rate in the relational expression with the calculated attenuation rate [¶0017, ¶0031-0033, ¶0044, ¶0208, ¶0216. 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.
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 Le Bihan, 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, Le Bihan teaches the limitation of claim 7, which this claim depends from.
Le Bihan further teaches shear moduli.
However, Le Bihan 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 Le Bihan 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 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Le Bihan, in view of Abe (JP 2012143315 A. For citations, see English translation provided by Espacenet attached to the previous office action.).
Regarding claim 9, Le Bihan teaches the limitation of claim 7, which this claim depends from.
Le Bihan further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to display a map in which magnitudes of the absolute signature index are expressed with darkness levels [claim 13. See also rest of reference.].
However, Le Bihan 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 Le Bihan 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, Le Bihan teaches the limitation of claim 7, which this claim depends from.
However, Le Bihan 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 Le Bihan 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 11, Le Bihan teaches the limitation of claim 7, which this claim depends from.
Le Bihan is silent in teaching 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.
Abe, which also in the field of MRI, 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 [¶0003, wherein shear information is obtained. ¶0030-0032 and equations 12-15. 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 Le Bihan 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 include all the elastic information in a single image [Abe - ¶0030-0032 and equations 12-15.], so as to be more efficient for a user viewing said image.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Le Bihan, in view of Sugiyama (US 2010/0106002).
Regarding claim 12, Le Bihan teaches the limitation of claim 7, which this claim depends from.
Le Bihan further teaches the magnitudes and the 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.].
However, Li 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 Le Bihan 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, Le Bihan teaches the limitation of claim 7, which this claim depends from.
Le Bihan further teaches the magnitudes and the 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.].
However, Li 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 Le Bihan 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, Le Bihan and Sugiyama teach the limitation of claim 13, which this claim depends from.
Le Bihan further teaches wherein the biological tissue is one of a muscle fiber, a tendon fiber, and a brain tissue [¶0026. See also rest of reference.].
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
Prosecution Insights