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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels (Fig. 2). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more. In particular, analyzing these claims under 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance:
Claim 1 recites:
A method for assigning a spatial orientation to a movement signal of a movement of an examination object of a magnetic resonance examination, the method comprising: capturing a first movement signal in a capture period using a first movement capture method;
capturing at least one further movement signal using at least one further movement capture method during the capture period; and
assigning a spatial orientation to at least one component of the first movement signal, the assigning comprising comparing the first movement signal with the at least one further movement signal.
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a method for assigning a spatial orientation to a movement signal of a movement of an examination object of a magnetic resonance examination and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter (process).
Step 2A, prong 1:
At least the highlighted recitation of claim 1 set forth above relates to abstract ideas in the form of mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with pen/paper and/or mathematical concepts, e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations. In particular:
The language “assigning a spatial orientation to at least one component of the first movement signal, the assigning comprising comparing the first movement signal with the at least one further movement signal” has a scope that includes mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with pen/paper when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
Step 2A, prong 2:
Claim 1 recites as an additional elements “capturing a first movement signal in a capture period using a first movement capture method” and “capturing at least one further movement signal using at least one further movement capture method during the capture period”. These steps represent no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(g). Considered alone or in combination with the abstract idea, these steps do not represent integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
As discussed above, the additional elements “capturing a first movement signal in a capture period using a first movement capture method” and “capturing at least one further movement signal using at least one further movement capture method during the capture period” represent no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea and, therefore, do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea either when considered alone or in combination with the abstract idea.
Claim 1 is therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Each of dependent claims 2-14 appear to further elaborate on the abstract ideas identified above in connection with claim 1 and/or recite additional abstract ideas in the form of mental processes practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations. None of dependent claims 2-14 appear to recite any additional element(s) that would serve to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under Step 2A, prong 2 or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas under Step 2B. Dependent claims 2-14 are therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15 recites:
A magnetic resonance apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to assign a spatial orientation to a movement signal of a movement of an examination object of a magnetic resonance examination, the processor being configured to assign the spatial orientation to the movement signals comprising the processor being configured to:
capture a first movement signal in a capture period using a first movement capture method;
capture at least one further movement signal using at least one further movement capture method during the capture period; and
assign a spatial orientation to at least one component of the first movement signal, the assignment comprising a comparison of the first movement signal with the at least one further movement signal.
Step 1:
Claim 15 is directed to a magnetic resonance apparatus and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter (machine).
Step 2A, prong 1:
At least the highlighted recitation of claim 15 set forth above relates to abstract ideas in the form of mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with pen/paper and/or mathematical concepts, e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations. In particular:
The language “assign a spatial orientation to at least one component of the first movement signal, the assignment comprising a comparison of the first movement signal with the at least one further movement signal” has a scope that includes mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with pen/paper when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
Step 2A, prong 2:
Claim 15 recites as an additional elements “a processor configured to assign a spatial orientation to a movement signal of a movement of an examination object of a magnetic resonance examination, the processor being configured to assign the spatial orientation to the movement signals comprising the processor being configured to: capture a first movement signal in a capture period using a first movement capture method; capture at least one further movement signal using at least one further movement capture method during the capture period”, and perform the “assign a spatial orientation” step. The processes of “capture a first movement signal in a capture period using a first movement capture method” and “capture at least one further movement signal using at least one further movement capture method during the capture period” represent no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea. See 2106.05(g). Further, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(f). These additional elements, considered alone or in combination with the abstract idea, therefore do not represent integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Based on the same considerations discussed above in connection with Step 2A, prong 2, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea and simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, the additional elements do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea either when considered alone or in combination with the abstract idea.
Claim 15 is therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16 recites:
In a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions executable by one or more processors to assign a spatial orientation to a movement signal of a movement of an examination object of a magnetic resonance examination, the instructions comprising:
capturing a first movement signal in a capture period using a first movement capture method;
capturing at least one further movement signal using at least one further movement capture method during the capture period; and
assigning a spatial orientation to at least one component of the first movement signal, the assigning comprising comparing the first movement signal with the at least one further movement signal.
Step 1:
Claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter (manufacture).
Step 2A, prong 1:
At least the highlighted recitation of claim 16 set forth above relates to abstract ideas in the form of mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with pen/paper and/or mathematical concepts, e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations. In particular:
The language “assigning a spatial orientation to at least one component of the first movement signal, the assigning comprising comparing the first movement signal with the at least one further movement signal” has a scope that includes mental processes practically performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with pen/paper when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
Step 2A, prong 2:
Claim 16 recites as an additional elements “[i]n a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions executable by one or more processors to assign a spatial orientation to a movement signal of a movement of an examination object of a magnetic resonance examination, the instructions comprising: capturing a first movement signal in a capture period using a first movement capture method; capturing at least one further movement signal using at least one further movement capture method during the capture period”, and performing the “assigning a spatial orientation” step. The processes of “capturing a first movement signal in a capture period using a first movement capture method” and “capturing at least one further movement signal using at least one further movement capture method during the capture period” represent no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea. See 2106.05(g). Further, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(f). These additional elements, considered alone or in combination with the abstract idea, therefore do not represent integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Based on the same considerations discussed above in connection with Step 2A, prong 2, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea and simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, the additional elements do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea either when considered alone or in combination with the abstract idea.
Claim 16 is therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Each of dependent claims 17-19 appear to further elaborate on the abstract ideas identified above in connection with claim 16 and/or recite additional abstract ideas in the form of mental processes practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations. None of dependent claims 17-19 appear to recite any additional element(s) that would serve to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under Step 2A, prong 2 or provide significantly more than the abstract ideas under Step 2B. Dependent claims 17-19 are therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vahle et al., Respiratory Motion Detection and Correction for MR Using the Pilot Tone: Applications for MR and Simultaneous PET/MR Examinations. Invest Radiol. 2020 Mar;55(3):153-159 (Vahle).
Regarding claim 1, Vahle discloses a method for assigning a spatial orientation to a movement signal of a movement of an examination object of a magnetic resonance examination, the method comprising:
capturing a first movement signal in a capture period using a first movement capture method (Vahle, e.g., Fig. 6b and pages 8-9, section 3.2, in Fig. 6b, pilot tone signal constitutes capturing a first movement signal in a capture period using a first movement capture method);
capturing at least one further movement signal using at least one further movement capture method during the capture period (Vahle, e.g., Fig. 6b and pages 8-9, section 3.2, in Fig. 6b, respiratory belt signal constitutes capturing at least one further movement signal using at least one further movement capture method during the capture period); and
assigning a spatial orientation to at least one component of the first movement signal, the assigning comprising comparing the first movement signal with the at least one further movement signal (Vahle, e.g., Fig. 6b and pages 8-9, section 3.2, in Fig. 6b, the comparison of the pilot signals and the respiratory belt shown in Figure 6b indicates that both approaches provide similar results; the examiner notes that the claim language recites “the assigning comprising comparing the first movement signal with the at least one further movement signal”; because Vahle explicitly discloses comparing the pilot signals with the respiratory belt signal in Fig. 6b, Vahle necessarily discloses “assigning a spatial orientation to at least one component of the first movement signal” as claimed).
Regarding claim 2, Vahle discloses wherein the at least one component of the first movement signal is described by a variation over time of amplitude (see Vahle as applied to claim 1, e.g., Vahle, e.g., Fig. 6b and pages 8-9, section 3.2, in Fig. 6b the pilot tone signal is described by a variation over time of amplitude), and
wherein the assigning of the spatial orientation to the at least one component comprises assigning a sign to the amplitude of the respective amplitude variation (see Vahle as applied to claim 1, e.g., Vahle, e.g., Fig. 6b and pages 8-9, section 3.2, in Fig. 6b the amplitude of the pilot tone is generally matched with the amplitude of the respiratory belt, with the amplitude of the respiratory belt corresponding to the compression/decompression of the cushion by upward/downward movements of the volunteer’s abdomen; the sign of each amplitude variation of the pilot tone signal is therefore the same as the sign of the corresponding amplitude variation of the respiratory belt).
Regarding claim 4, Vahle discloses wherein the at least one component of the first movement signal comprises:
a first component that is suitable for describing a movement component of the examination object, the first component being oriented parallel to a head-foot direction of the examination object;
a second component that is suitable for describing a movement component of the examination object, the second component being oriented parallel to a chest-back direction of the examination object (see Vahle as applied to claim 1, e.g., Vahle, e.g., Fig. 6b and pages 8-9, section 3.2, in Fig. 6b the pilot tone signal generally matches the respiratory belt corresponding to the compression/decompression of the cushion placed on the abdomen of the volunteer; the pilot tone is therefore a second component that is suitable for describing a movement component of the examination object, the second component being oriented parallel to a chest-back direction of the examination object); or
a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 5, Vahle discloses wherein the comparison of the first movement signal with the at least one further movement signal comprises a correlation analysis, a pattern comparison, or the correlation analysis and the pattern comparison (see Vahle as applied to claim 1, e.g., Vahle, e.g., Fig. 6b and pages 8-9, section 3.2, in Fig. 6b, the comparison of the pilot tone signals and the respiratory belt shown in Figure 6b indicates that both approaches provide similar results; only small differences in the amplitude can be observed for the various sequences; Vahle analysis in this regard constitutes both a correlation analysis and a pattern comparison).
Regarding claim 6, Vahle discloses wherein the first movement signal comprises a pilot tone signal (see Vahle as applied to claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Vahle discloses wherein the at least one further movement signal is captured by a sensor that is arranged in or on an apparatus arranged on the examination object, and wherein the apparatus is also moved via the movement of the examination object (see Vahle as applied to claim 1, Vahle, e.g., Fig. 6b and pages 8-9, section 3.2, in Fig. 6b, respiratory belt signal constitutes capturing at least one further movement signal using at least one further movement capture method during the capture period; also see page 6, section 2.4, a vendor-provided cushion was used to acquire an additional respiratory signal for comparison; the cushion was placed on the abdomen and a belt was wrapped around the volunteer in order to hold the cushion in place; the respiration of the volunteer causes a compression / decompression of the cushion and hence produces a respiratory signal; it is implicit in Vahle’s arrangement that the cushion necessarily contains a sensor for measuring the degree of compression, with the cushion constituting an apparatus as claimed).
Regarding claim 12, Vahle discloses wherein the at least one further movement signal is suitable for describing the movement of the examination object in a spatial direction parallel to a chest-back direction of the examination object (see Vahle as applied to claim 1, Vahle, e.g., Fig. 6b and pages 8-9, section 3.2, in Fig. 6b, respiratory belt signal constitutes capturing at least one further movement signal using at least one further movement capture method during the capture period; also see page 6, section 2.4, a vendor-provided cushion was used to acquire an additional respiratory signal for comparison; the cushion was placed on the abdomen and a belt was wrapped around the volunteer in order to hold the cushion in place; the respiration of the volunteer causes a compression / decompression of the cushion and hence produces a respiratory signal; it is implicit in Vahle’s arrangement that the placement of the cushion on the abdomen with provide a signal describing the movement of the examination object in a spatial direction parallel to a chest-back direction of the examination object).
Regarding claim 13, Vahle discloses comprising assigning a geometric scale to the first movement signal using the at least one further movement signal (Vahle, e.g., Fig. 6b and pages 8-9, section 3.2, in Fig. 6b, the comparison of the pilot signals and the respiratory belt shown in Figure 6b indicates that both approaches provide similar results; the examiner notes that the respiratory belt shown in Figure 6b is necessarily characterized by a geometric scale, i.e., the amount of movement of the cushion caused by respiratory movement of the volunteer’s abdomen, with the pilot signals in Fig. 6b having the same scale).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vahle.
Regarding claim 15, Vahle discloses
configured to:
capture a first movement signal in a capture period using a first movement capture method (Vahle, e.g., Fig. 6a and pages 8-9, section 3.2, in Fig. 6b, pilot tone signal constitutes capturing a first movement signal in a capture period using a first movement capture method);
capture at least one further movement signal using at least one further movement capture method during the capture period (Vahle, e.g., Fig. 6a and pages 8-9, section 3.2, in Fig. 6b, respiratory belt signal constitutes capturing at least one further movement signal using at least one further movement capture method during the capture period); and
assign a spatial orientation to at least one component of the first movement signal, the assignment comprising a comparison of the first movement signal with the at least one further movement signal (Vahle, e.g., Fig. 6a and pages 8-9, section 3.2, in Fig. 6b, the comparison of the pilot signals and the respiratory belt shown in Figure 6b indicates that both approaches provide similar results; the examiner notes that the claim language recites “the assigning comprising comparing the first movement signal with the at least one further movement signal”; because Vahle explicitly discloses comparing the pilot signals with the respiratory belt signal in Fig. 6b, Vahle necessarily discloses “assigning a spatial orientation to at least one component of the first movement signal” as claimed).
Vahle’s acquisition of the signals shown in Fig. 6b, as well as the comparison of Fig. 6b itself, would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as being implemented by a processor or computer, although not necessarily by a common processor or computer. In this regard, the examiner notes that Vahle’s acquisition the pilot tone signals and the respiratory belt signa are acquired using instrumentation in/on an MR machine, and that Vahle discloses that the data/comparison provided by Fig. 6b is intended for use in connection with PET/MR exams. Further, the examiner takes Official notice of the fact that it was well-known and conventional before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to provide computer/processing resources as a component of MR machines for analyzing data. It 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 to modify Vahle such that Vahle’s processes are implemented by a processor, e.g., a processor of an MR machine. In this way, the data/comparison provided by Fig. 6b may be used to provide effective motion tracking during an imaging sequence performed by the MR machine.
Claim 16 recites in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions executable by one or more processors to assign a spatial orientation to a movement signal of a movement of an examination object of a magnetic resonance examination, the instructions comprising:
capturing a first movement signal in a capture period using a first movement capture method;
capturing at least one further movement signal using at least one further movement capture method during the capture period; and
assigning a spatial orientation to at least one component of the first movement signal, the assigning comprising comparing the first movement signal with the at least one further movement signal,
and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Vahle as applied to claim 15, recognizing the well-known and conventional use of a computer-readable storage medium for storing programmatic instructions to control processor operation.
Regarding claim 17, Vahle discloses wherein the at least one component of the first movement signal is described by a variation over time of amplitude (see Vahle as applied to claim 16, e.g., Vahle, e.g., Fig. 6b and pages 8-9, section 3.2, in Fig. 6b the pilot tone signal is described by a variation over time of amplitude), and wherein the assigning of the spatial orientation to the at least one component comprises assigning a sign to the amplitude of the respective amplitude variation (see Vahle as applied to claim 16, e.g., Vahle, e.g., Fig. 6b and pages 8-9, section 3.2, in Fig. 6b the amplitude of the pilot tone is generally matched with the amplitude of the respiratory belt, with the amplitude of the respiratory belt corresponding to the compression/decompression of the cushion by upward/downward movements of the volunteer’s abdomen; the sign of each amplitude variation of the pilot tone signal is therefore the same as the sign of the corresponding amplitude variation of the respiratory belt).
Claims 3 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vahle in view of Ludwig et al., Pilot tone–based motion correction for prospective respiratory compensated cardiac cine MRI, Magn Reson Med. 2021; 85: 2403–2416 (Ludwig).
Regarding claim 3, Vahle is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein capturing the first movement signal comprises establishing at least two components of the first movement signal that are suitable for describing the movement of the examination object in respectively another spatial direction. In related art, Ludwig discloses capturing a first movement signal includes establishing at least two components of the first movement signal that are suitable for describing the movement of the examination object in respectively another spatial direction (Ludwig, e.g., page 2405, equations 1-2, with a first component of the pilot tone (PT) signal being used to describe movement of an examination subject in a head-feet (HF) direction (equation 1) and with a second component of the PT signal being used to describe movement of the examination subject in a anterior-posterior (AP) direction (equation 2). It 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 to modify Vahle such that capturing the first movement signal comprises establishing at least two components of the first movement signal that are suitable for describing the movement of the examination object in respectively another spatial direction. In this way, in the manner disclosed by Ludwig, respiratory motion of the heat can be determined using the pilot tone signal to obtain motion correction.
Regarding claim 18, Vahle is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein capturing the first movement signal comprises establishing at least two components of the first movement signal that are suitable for describing the movement of the examination object in respectively another spatial direction. In related art, Ludwig discloses capturing a first movement signal includes establishing at least two components of the first movement signal that are suitable for describing the movement of the examination object in respectively another spatial direction (Ludwig, e.g., page 2405, equations 1-2, with a first component of the pilot tone (PT) signal being used to describe movement of an examination subject in a head-feet (HF) direction (equation 1) and with a second component of the PT signal being used to describe movement of the examination subject in a anterior-posterior (AP) direction (equation 2). It 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 to modify Vahle such that capturing the first movement signal comprises establishing at least two components of the first movement signal that are suitable for describing the movement of the examination object in respectively another spatial direction. In this way, in the manner disclosed by Ludwig, respiratory motion of the heat can be determined using the pilot tone signal to obtain motion correction.
Regarding claim 19, Vahle is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein the at least one component of the first movement signal comprises:
a first component that is suitable for describing a movement component of the examination object, the first component being oriented parallel to a head-foot direction of the examination object;
a second component that is suitable for describing a movement component of the examination object, the second component being oriented parallel to a chest-back direction of the examination object. In related art, Ludwig discloses that components of a movement signal include a first component that is suitable for describing a movement component of the examination object, the first component being oriented parallel to a head-foot direction of the examination object and a second component that is suitable for describing a movement component of the examination object, the second component being oriented parallel to a chest-back direction of the examination object (Ludwig, e.g., page 2405, equations 1-2, with a first component of the pilot tone (PT) signal being used to describe movement of an examination subject in a head-feet (HF) direction (equation 1) and with a second component of the PT signal being used to describe movement of the examination subject in an anterior-posterior (AP) direction (equation 2). It 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 to modify Vahle such the at least one component of the first movement signal comprises: (1) a first component that is suitable for describing a movement component of the examination object, the first component being oriented parallel to a head-foot direction of the examination object, and (2) a second component that is suitable for describing a movement component of the examination object, the second component being oriented parallel to a chest-back direction of the examination object. In this way, in the manner disclosed by Ludwig, respiratory motion of the heat can be determined using the pilot tone signal to obtain motion correction.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vahle in view of Speier et al., Skip the Electrodes, But Not A Beat: The Engineering Behind the Beat Sensor, MAGNETOM Flash (83), 1/2023 (Speier).
Regarding claim 7, Vahle discloses wherein at least of the at least one component of the first movement signal are established by a BSS algorithm (Vahle, e.g., pages 4-5, section 2.2, use of PCA to detect respiratory motion, use of fast independent component analysis (FICA) to detect cardiac motion). Vahle is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein at least two components of the at least one component of the first movement signal are established by a BSS algorithm. In related art, Speier discloses that at least two components of the at least one component of the first movement signal are established by a BSS algorithm (Speier, e.g., page 21, Box 3, Signal processing basics, a key advantage of the PT method is the use of all connected coil elements for receiving the PT signal; each
receive coil “sees” a different combination of cardiac, respiratory and other motion, depending on its location; since we are interested in observing cardiac and
respiratory motion by themselves, these components must be separated first; this can be accomplished by a class of algorithms known as “Blind Source Separation”; also see use of FastICA and PCA-based algorithm). It 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 to modify Vahle such that at least two components of the at least one component of the first movement signal are established by a BSS algorithm. In this way, in the manner disclosed by Speier, cardiac and
respiratory motion components of the pilot tone signal can be separated so that these motions can be observed.
Regarding claim 8, Vahle in view of Speier discloses wherein the BSS algorithm is an ICA algorithm, a PCA algorithm, or a combination thereof (see Vahle in view of Speier as applied to claim 7, FastICA and PCA-based algorithm).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Solomon et al., Free-breathing radial imaging using a pilot-tone radiofrequency transmitter for detection of respiratory motion. Magn Reson Med. 2021; 85: 2672–2685 relates to an approach for detection of respiratory signals using a transmitted radiofrequency (RF) reference signal called Pilot-Tone (PT) and to use the PT signal for creation of motion-resolved images based on 3D stack-of-stars imaging under free-breathing conditions.
Madore et al., External Hardware and Sensors, for Improved MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2023 Mar;57(3):690-705 relates to a review of ancillary devices for monitoring performance and maintenance needs in the context of MRI.
Chen et al., Design and Validation of a Novel MR-Compatible Sensor for Respiratory Motion Modeling and Correction, in IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 123-133, Jan. 2017 relates to magnetic resonance (MR) compatible accelerometer for respiratory motion sensing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL R MILLER whose telephone number is (571) 270-1964. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, CATHERINE T RASTOVSKI can be reached on (571) 270-0349. 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.
/DANIEL R MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863