DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoshiyama (US 2021/0055365, of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 15-18, Hoshiyama discloses a magnetic resonance imaging method, system, non-transitory computer readable medium with an executable program, and device, with a controller and processors for acquiring a two-dimensional magnetic resonance image of a slice through a region of interest, the method comprising: receiving a gradient field map of the region of interest (Abstract: “slice plane that defines the actual excitation region”), the gradient field map defining a transformation from a real space to a gradient space, the gradient space being distorted with respect to the real space due to a non-linearity of gradient fields ([0041]: “the gradient magnetic field becomes distorted from the ideal linearity”); receiving a nominal size, position, and orientation of a target slice, from which the image is to be acquired, in the real space ([0037]: “slice thickness”, “position”, “orientation”); transforming, using the gradient field map, a set of points within the target slice into the gradient space to determine a distorted set of points defining a distorted slice in the gradient space ([0080]: “correcting function 123f changes at least one of the normal vector of the uncorrected excitation slice plane and the value of the RF frequency” – the set of points within the corrected excitation slice plane are transformed to align with the non-ideal and distorted gradient field map); determining a position and orientation of a new slice that approximate a position and orientation of the distorted slice in the gradient space, wherein the new slice is obtained by shifting and/or tilting the target slice ([0080]…[0087] – the position and orientation of the excitation plane is changed in accordance with the non-ideal and distorted gradient field map); exciting the new slice in the gradient space to acquire a two-dimensional magnetic resonance image; and performing a two-dimensional distortion correction of the two-dimensional image to remove in-plane distortions due to non-linearity of the gradient fields ([0018]: “corrected excitation slice plane” is the new slice).
Regarding claim 7, Hoshiyama disclose receiving a set of scan parameters for acquiring the target slice; and outputting a set of amended scan parameters for acquiring the new slice, wherein the only scan parameters that have been amended in the set of amended scan parameters are the position and/or the orientation of the slice from which an image is to be acquired ([0092]: “transmits the combination of the normal vector and the RF frequency”, [0099]: “corrects the imaging conditions”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-6 and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshiyama (US 2021/0055365).
Regarding claim 2, Hoshiyama does not explicitly disclose that the two-dimensional size and shape of the new slice are the same as the two-dimensional size and shape that of the target slice. However, Hoshiyama teaches that a target slice is merely corrected for its position and orientation with respect to gradient field distortion ([0078]…[0080]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the size of the uncorrected plane to the corrected plane, as to provide robust and consistent imaging of the target region.
Regarding claim 3, Hoshiyama does not explicitly disclose that the shifting of the target slice is constrained to one direction perpendicular to the plane of the target slice. However, Hoshiyama teaches that a target slice is shifted as needed to accommodate gradient field distortions ([0079]…[0087]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply a constrained shifting to the slice being corrected, as to provide robust and consistent adjustments to an uncorrected plane.
Regarding claim 4, Hoshiyama does not explicitly disclose that the tilting of the target slice is constrained to be around an axis within the target slice or within the shifted target slice. However, Hoshiyama teaches that a target slice orientation is determined as needed to accommodate gradient field distortions ([0079]…[0087]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply a constrained orienting to the slice being corrected, as to provide robust and consistent adjustments to an uncorrected plane.
Regarding claim 5, Hoshiyama does not explicitly disclose determining the position and orientation of the new slice comprises minimizing at least one out-of-plane distance between the new slice and the distorted slice. However, Hoshiyama does teach minimizing the difference between a corrected excitation slice plane and an ideal slice plane ([0079]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply a minimization function to differences between ideal and non-ideal orientations of the excitation plane, as to provide a corrected slice plane.
Regarding claim 6, Hoshiyama does not explicitly disclose determining the position and orientation of the new slice comprises minimizing a maximum out-of-plane distance between the new slice and the distorted slice. However, Hoshiyama does teach minimizing the difference between a corrected excitation slice plane and an ideal slice plane ([0079]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply a minimization function to differences between ideal and non-ideal orientations of the excitation plane, as to provide a corrected slice plane.
Regarding claim 8, Hoshiyama does not explicitly disclose that the set of points within the target slice comprises 5 to 40 points which are distributed across the target slice. However, Hoshiyama teaches that the points of a slice are adjusted and accounted for ([0080]: “correcting function 123f changes at least one of the normal vector of the uncorrected excitation slice plane and the value of the RF frequency” – the set of points within the corrected excitation slice plane are transformed to align with the non-ideal and distorted gradient field map). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply a certain number of points across a target slice, so as to acquire the points that represent the position of the slice.
Regarding claim 9, Hoshiyama does not explicitly disclose calculating or estimating at least one out-of-plane distance between the target slice in the real space and the distorted slice in the gradient space; and selecting the new slice for excitation in response to the out-of-plane distance having a larger absolute value than the at least one out-of-plane distance between the new slice in the gradient space and the distorted target slice in the gradient space. However, Hoshiyama does teach minimizing the difference between a corrected excitation slice plane and an ideal slice plane ([0079]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply a minimization function to differences between ideal and non-ideal orientations of the excitation plane, as to provide a corrected slice plane.
Regarding claim 10, Hoshiyama does not explicitly disclose that performing the two-dimensional distortion correction uses an algorithm adapted to calculate or estimate the out-of-plane distance between the acquired new slice and the nominal target slice in the real space. However, Hoshiyama does teach minimizing the difference between a corrected excitation slice plane and an ideal slice plane ([0079]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply a minimization function to differences between ideal and non-ideal orientations of the excitation plane, as to provide a corrected slice plane.
Regarding claim 11, Hoshiyama does not explicitly disclose that the algorithm is further adapted to calculate or estimate the out-of-plane distance between the new slice and the distorted target slice in the gradient space. However, Hoshiyama does teach estimating and minimizing the spatial difference between a corrected excitation slice plane and an ideal slice plane ([0079]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply an estimation of differences between ideal and non-ideal orientations of the excitation plane, as to provide a corrected slice plane.
Regarding claim 12, Hoshiyama does not explicitly disclose generating a notification in response to the out-of-plane distance between the acquired new slice and the nominal target slice exceeding one or more threshold values. However, Hoshiyama does teach measuring the differences between an idea and non-ideal slice plane ([0089], [0090]) wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to utilize some notification if differences exceed certain threshold values, as to provide a critical account of the gradient field distortion.
Regarding claim 13, Hoshiyama does not explicitly disclose receiving a nominal slice thickness of the target slice in the real space and calculating a lower surface and an upper surface of the target slice in the real space; and transforming, using the gradient field map, a set of points within the lower surface and the upper surface of the target slice into the gradient space to obtain a lower surface and an upper surface in the gradient space which are distorted due to the non-linearity of the gradient fields. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to adjust the slice thickness when correcting for slice properties to accommodate gradient field distortion since the thickness of an excitation slice is influenced by the spatial distribution of the gradient field.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Ip whose telephone number is (571) 270-5387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-5p PST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (571) 272-7230. 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.
/JASON M IP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3793