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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “9a)” should be “(a)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “40°to 50” should be “40° to 50°”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim discloses “(b) determining an estimate of an overall peripheral nerve stimulation for the planned magnetic resonance imaging scan” but it is not clear what is meant by “an overall peripheral nerve stimulation. It appears that “overall” signifies that the peripheral nerve stimulation is considered by taking into account the contribution of all physical axes, but it is not clear.
It is also not clear based on which parameters the estimate of the overall PNS is determined, i.e.
- based on the rotation angle(s) of the one or more logical axes with respect to the physical axes, see e.g. equations 6 and 7
- based on the gradient signals and their derivatives (Safe model) of the physical gradients, see also page 13, lines 36-38 or claim 2: "based on at least one duration, at least one waveform and a number of applied gradient pulses that are required for the whole or part of the planned magnetic resonance imaging scan"; page 14, lines 2-7: "Additionally and/or alternatively, the estimate of the peripheral nerve stimulation may be based on characteristic constants of the individual physical gradient axes that are a measure for the individual physical gradient axes' contribution to the peripheral nerve stimulation"
It is also not clear how the contributions of the three physical gradient axes Gx,y,z are considered in the overall PNS, see e.g. equation 3 or page 16, lines 20-27 and how the respective contribution of the logical gradients Gx’,y’,z’ to the physical gradients are reflected in the calculation of the overall PNS, in particular how the polarity of a gradient is reflected in the calculation of the overall PNS; see equations 6 and 7.
Therefore, claim 1 is considered indefinite. Claims 2-16 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the claim discloses “the estimate of the peripheral nerve stimulation” but it is unclear if this is the same or different from “estimate of the overall peripheral nerve stimulation” disclosed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the claim discloses “the estimate of the peripheral nerve stimulation” but it is unclear if this is the same or different from “estimate of the overall peripheral nerve stimulation” disclosed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the claim discloses “at least two of three logical gradient axes” and it is unclear if this is the same or different from “at least two logical gradient axes” disclosed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the claim discloses “the estimate of the peripheral nerve stimulation” but it is unclear if this is the same or different from “estimate of the overall peripheral nerve stimulation” disclosed in claim 1. Claim 6 is rejected for depending on claim 5.
Regarding claim 5, the claim discloses “the lowest peripheral nerve stimulation” but it is unclear if this is the same or different from “a lowest overall peripheral nerve stimulation” disclosed in claim 1. Claim 6 is rejected for depending on claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, the claim discloses “the estimate of the peripheral nerve stimulation” but it is unclear if this is the same or different from “estimate of the overall peripheral nerve stimulation” disclosed in claim 1. Claim 8 is rejected for depending on claim 7.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations “wherein act (c) is only carried out when the estimate of act (b) exceeds a pre- defined threshold” is considered indefinite. In the claimed situation, step c is not carried out and therefore, the claim is broader than the independent claim.
Regarding claim 17, the same reasons for indefiniteness as claim 1 also apply to this claim. Claims 18-19 are rejected for depending on claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, the claim discloses “the estimate of the peripheral nerve stimulation” but it is unclear if this is the same or different from “estimate of the overall peripheral nerve stimulation” disclosed in claim 17.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feiweier (US 20170205483), in view of Bhat (EP 4009066 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Feiweier teaches a method for reducing peripheral nerve stimulation in a subject during a magnetic resonance imaging scan of the subject using a magnetic resonance system having three physical gradient axes, the method comprising:
a) planning the magnetic resonance imaging scan by selecting an imaging protocol and positioning a field-of-view of the scan obliquely through the subject, such that at least two logical gradient axes of the scan are not parallel to any of the physical gradient axes [¶0036, ¶0051, claim 1, and claim 16, wherein a rotation angle is used and describes a relative position of the logical gradient axes to the physical gradient axes may assume any rotation value. See also rest of reference which teaches rotation angle.];
(b) determining an estimate of an overall peripheral nerve stimulation for the planned magnetic resonance imaging scan [¶0014, ¶0031, ¶0057, ¶0115 wherein peripheral nerve stimulation is used as a limitation. See also claim 1. See also rest of reference.];
(c) determining new parameter values and determining an estimate of the overall peripheral nerve stimulation for the planned magnetic resonance imaging scan with the new parameter values [Claim 1, wherein the selected parameter out of the plurality of parameters is simulated and a new parameter value is determined based on the permissible range. ¶0014, ¶0031, ¶0057, ¶0115 wherein peripheral nerve stimulation is used as a limitation. See also rest of reference.];
(d) selecting the new parameter value which has a lowest overall peripheral nerve stimulation [Claim 1, ¶0059, ¶0141, wherein a minimum value is used for determining the new parameter value. See also rest of reference.]; and
(e) performing the planned magnetic resonance imaging scan on the subject with the selected gradient polarity [See claims 1, 16, 18. See also rest of reference.].
However, Feiweier is silent in teaching inverting a gradient polarity of at least one logical gradient axis of the scan that is not parallel to any of the physical gradient axes and selecting the gradient polarity of the at least one logical gradient axis.
Bhat, which is also in the field of MRI< teaches selecting inverting a gradient polarity of at least one logical gradient axis of the scan that is not parallel to any of the physical gradient axes and selecting the gradient polarity of the at least one logical gradient axis [¶0080-0081. 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 Feiweier and Bhat because both references are in the field of optimizing parameters in MRI and because Bhat teaches it is known in the art to invert the gradient polarities to reduce stimulations [Bhat - ¶0080-0081. See also rest of reference.], which is a goal of Feiweier.
Regarding claim 2, Feiweier and Bhat teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Feiweier further teaches wherein act (d) comprises selecting the gradient polarity that has a lowest maximum of the overall peripheral nerve stimulation across the imaging protocol [Claim 1, ¶0059, ¶0141, wherein a minimum value is used for determining the new parameter value. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Feiweier and Bhat teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Feiweier further teaches wherein the estimate of the peripheral nerve stimulation is determined based on durations, waveforms, and number of applied gradient pulses required for the whole or part of the planned magnetic resonance imaging scan [See Fig. 4 and ¶0124-0135. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 4, Feiweier and Bhat teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Feiweier further teaches wherein the acts (b)- (d) of determining the estimate of the peripheral nerve stimulation with new parameter values are carried out for at least two of three logical gradient axes [¶0136. See also rest of reference.].
However, Feiweier are silent in teaching both gradient polarities and selecting a gradient polarity.
Bhat further teaches estimate of the peripheral nerve stimulation with both gradient polarities and selecting a gradient polarity are carried out for at least two of three logical gradient axes [¶0080-0081. 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 Feiweier and Bhat because both references are in the field of optimizing parameters in MRI and because Bhat teaches it is known in the art to invert the gradient polarities to reduce stimulations [Bhat - ¶0080-0081. See also rest of reference.], which is a goal of Feiweier.
Regarding claim 5, Feiweier and Bhat teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Feiweier further teaches wherein the estimate of the peripheral nerve stimulation is determined based on multiple simulations of the planned magnetic resonance imaging scan, one for each permutation of properties of at least two logical gradient axes, wherein a set of gradient properties is selected that has the lowest peripheral nerve stimulation according to the estimate [Claim 1. ¶0108-¶0136, wherein simulations are performed for each test value to determine the permissible parameter range. See also stimulation. Claim 1, ¶0059, ¶0141, wherein a minimum value is used for determining the new parameter value. See also rest of reference.].
However, Feiweier is silent in teaching permutation of polarity and gradient polarities.
Bhat further teaches permutation of polarity and gradient polarities [¶0080-0081. 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 Feiweier and Bhat because both references are in the field of optimizing parameters in MRI and because Bhat teaches it is known in the art to invert the gradient polarities to reduce stimulations [Bhat - ¶0080-0081. See also rest of reference.], which is a goal of Feiweier.
Regarding claim 6, Feiweier and Bhat teach the limitations of claim 5, which this claim depends from.
Feiweier further teaches wherein the peripheral nerve stimulation is determined based on multiple simulations of the planned magnetic resonance imaging scan, one for each permutation of gradient property of all the logical gradient axes that are not parallel to any physical gradient axis [Claim 1. ¶0108-¶0136, wherein simulations are performed for each test value to determine the permissible parameter range. See also stimulation. Claim 1, ¶0059, ¶0141, wherein a minimum value is used for determining the new parameter value. See also rest of reference.].
However, Feiweier is silent in teaching permutation of polarity.
Bhat further teaches permutation of polarity and gradient polarities [¶0080-0081. 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 Feiweier and Bhat because both references are in the field of optimizing parameters in MRI and because Bhat teaches it is known in the art to invert the gradient polarities to reduce stimulations [Bhat - ¶0080-0081. See also rest of reference.], which is a goal of Feiweier.
Regarding claim 9, Feiweier and Bhat teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Feiweier further teaches wherein act (c) is only carried out when the estimate of act (b) exceeds a pre- defined threshold, and wherein the polarity of act (b) is selected in act (d) when the estimate of act (b) does not exceed the pre-defined threshold [See claim 1 and 16. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, Feiweier and Bhat teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Feiweier further teaches wherein the magnetic resonance imaging is a gradient echo protocol or a turbo spin-echo protocol [¶0104, ¶0119. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Feiweier and Bhat teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Feiweier if silent in teaching wherein the magnetic resonance imaging scan is an oblique scan.
Bhat further teaches wherein the magnetic resonance imaging scan is an oblique scan [¶0007. 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 Feiweier and Bhat because both references are in the field of optimizing parameters in MRI and because Bhat teaches it is known in the art to invert the gradient polarities to reduce stimulations [Bhat - ¶0080-0081. See also rest of reference.], which is a goal of Feiweier.
Regarding claim 13, Feiweier and Bhat teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Feiweier and Bhat both further teach wherein the at least one logical axis comprises a read-out axis, a slice-select axis and/or a phase-encode axis or axes [Feiweier - ¶0136. Bhat - ¶0080-0081. See also rest of references.].
Regarding claim 14, Feiweier and Bhat teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Feiweier further teaches wherein the at least one logical axis comprises a slice- select axis [¶0136.].
However, Feiweier is silent in teaching wherein the polarity of a frequency of RF pulses is selected according to the selected polarity of the slice- select axis.
Bhat further teaches wherein the at least one logical axis comprises a slice- select axis [¶0080-0083. See also rest of reference.]; and wherein the polarity of a frequency of RF pulses is selected according to the selected polarity of the slice- select axis [¶0080-0083. 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 Feiweier and Bhat because both references are in the field of optimizing parameters in MRI and because Bhat teaches it is known in the art to invert the gradient polarities to reduce stimulations [Bhat - ¶0080-0081. See also rest of reference.], which is a goal of Feiweier.
Regarding claim 15, Feiweier and Bhat teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Feiweier teaches wherein three logical gradient axes are rotated with respect to the three physical gradient axes around at least one of the physical gradient axes by at least 20° [¶0051. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 16, Feiweier and Bhat teach the limitations of claim 15, which this claim depends from.
Feiweier teaches wherein the three logical gradient axes are rotated with respect to the three physical gradient axes around at least one of the physical gradient axes by 40° to 50° [¶0051. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 17, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to this claim. Claim 17 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the same reasons for rejection as claim 3 also apply to this claim. Claim 18 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, the same reasons for rejection as claim 10 also apply to this claim. Claim 19 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 10.
Claims 7-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Feiweier, in view of previously cited Bhat, and in further view of Gong (US 2021/0011100).
Regarding claim 7, Feiweier and Bhat teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
However, Feiweier and Bhat are silent in teaching wherein the estimate of the peripheral nerve stimulation is based on characteristic constants of the physical gradient axes, the characteristic constants being a measure for the physical gradient axes' contribution to the peripheral nerve stimulation.
Gong, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the estimate of the peripheral nerve stimulation is based on characteristic constants of the physical gradient axes, the characteristic constants being a measure for the physical gradient axes' contribution to the peripheral nerve stimulation [¶0100. 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 Feiweier and Bhat with the teachings of Gong because all references are in the field of teaching of determining stimulation in the subjection and Gong teaches it is known in the art to use weight values for measuring peripheral nerve stimulation [Gong - ¶0100. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 8, Feiweier, Bhat, and Gong teach the limitations of claim 7, which this claim depends from.
Feiweier further teaches wherein at least the gradient property of the logical gradient axis which has a vector component in a direction of the physical gradient axis having the highest individual contribution to the peripheral nerve stimulation is modified and estimated [Claim 1 and 16. ¶0031, ¶0055-0056, wherein a maximum stimulation is disclosed. See also rest of reference which discloses maximum.].
However, Feiweier is silent in teaching inverting the gradient polarity.
Bhat further teaches wherein at least the polarity of the logical gradient axis which has a vector component in a direction of the physical gradient axis having the highest individual contribution to the peripheral nerve stimulation is inverted and estimated [¶0080-0081. 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 Feiweier and Bhat because both references are in the field of optimizing parameters in MRI and because Bhat teaches it is known in the art to invert the gradient polarities to reduce stimulations [Bhat - ¶0080-0081. See also rest of reference.], which is a goal of Feiweier.
Regarding claim 12, Feiweier and Bhat teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Bhat further teaches wherein the magnetic resonance imaging scan is an oblique scan [¶0007. See also rest of reference.].
However, Feiweier and Bhat are silent in teaching a heart imaging scan.
Gong further teaches a heart imaging scan [¶0099. 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 Feiweier and Bhat with the teachings of Gong because all references are in the field of teaching of determining stimulation in the subjection and Gong teaches it is known in the art to use weight values for measuring peripheral nerve stimulation [Gong - ¶0100. 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, 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