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 .
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
It is unclear to the Examiner precisely what “collapsed form data” means. The specification doesn’t seem to offer any clarification. It would be helpful if Applicant could more clearly define what “collapsed form data” is. For purposes of examination the Examiner will assume “broadest possible interpretation” that
“collapsed form data” means “incomplete data”.
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 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(s) 1—3, 8—12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoge et al. (US-20170038450-A1) in view of Zeller1 (EP-3462205-A1).
Regarding claim 1
Hoge et al. discloses
A method for separating measurement data ([0007]) of an object under examination acquired in collapsed form ([0015]) simultaneously for at least two slices ([0007]), using an echo planar (EPI) simultaneous multi-slice (SMS) technique ([0007]—[0008]), into measurement data of individual slices, the method comprising:
loading measurement data to be separated which was generated by generating a train of at least two echo signals ([0001]—[0006]) from at least two
different slices of the object under examination after one radio frequency (RF) excitation pulse ([0015]—[0016]), and by acquiring the echo signals while switching readout gradients of alternating polarity for consecutive echo signals
([0015]—[0016] & [0026]), and by capturing as the measurement data the echo signals acquired simultaneously for the at least two slices ([0007]—[0008]);
for each of the at least two slices, acquiring using a gradient echo (GRE) acquisition technique ([0024]) a first set of reference measurement data for separating the measurement data ([0006]),
wherein reference measurement data in the first set of reference measurement data is acquired after a plurality of excitations having different phase encoding and in each case during switching of identically shaped readout gradients of a first polarity ([0013]);
for each of the at least two slices, acquiring using a GRE acquisition technique a second set of reference measurement data for separating the measurement data ([0030]), wherein
reference measurement data ([0006]) in the second set of reference measurement data is acquired after a plurality of excitations having different phase encoding and in each case during switching of identically shaped readout gradients of a second polarity ([0013]), which differs from the first polarity ([0015]);
determining first calibration data based on acquired first sets of reference
measurement data ([0006]);
determining second calibration data based on acquired second sets of reference measurement data ([0006], additional data is a “second set”);
applying the first calibration data in order to separate into first measurement data of individual slices the measurement data captured in collapsed form that was acquired using readout gradients of the first polarity ([0005]—[0007]);
applying the second calibration data in order to separate into second measurement data of individual slices the measurement data captured in collapsed form that was acquired using readout gradients of the second polarity ([0005]—[0007]); and
Although strongly implied, Hoge does not explicitly disclose
“storing and/or processing further the first measurement data of individual slices and the second measurement data of individual slices, in each case for at least one individual slice of the at least two slices for which measurement data was acquired simultaneously in collapsed form”.
Zeller1, however, teaches
storing and/or processing further the first measurement data of individual slices and the second measurement data of individual slices, in each case for at least one individual slice of the at least two slices for which measurement data was acquired simultaneously in collapsed form
Regarding claim 2
Hoge in view of Zeller1 teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Hoge, applied to claim 2, further teaches
wherein reference measurement data in the first set of reference measurement data and in the second set of reference measurement data ([0006]—[0008]) is acquired with the same phase encoding after joint excitation during two immediately consecutive readout gradients of the first polarity and the second polarity ([0013]).
Regarding claim 3
Hoge in view of Zeller1 teach the method as claimed in claim 2,
Hoge, applied to claim 3, further teaches
wherein reference measurement data in the first set of reference measurement data and/or in the second set of reference measurement data is acquired at least twice ([0006]—[0008]) with an identical polarity with a same phase encoding after a joint excitation, with a result that at least two sets of reference measurement data of a same type are acquired ([0028]).
Regarding claim 8
Hoge in view of Zeller1 teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Hoge, applied to claim 8, further teaches
wherein preprocessing steps that are applied to the measurement data to be separated before the first and/or second calibration data is applied to the measurement data to be separated, are applied analogously also before the determining of the first and second calibration data to the first set of reference
measurement data and/or to the second set of reference measurement data ([0006]—[0008]).
Regarding claim 9
Hoge in view of Zeller1 teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Hoge, applied to claim 9, further teaches
wherein the measurement data to be separated was acquired in-plane incompletely in accordance with a parallel acquisition technique ([0005], the GRAPPA parallel acquisition technique is defined in the Specification [0083] as an “in-plane incomplete technique”), and
the first set of reference measurement data and the second set of reference measurement data are used as reference measurement data as part of the parallel acquisition technique to complete the data that was not acquired ([0006]—[0008]).
Regarding claim 10
Hoge in view of Zeller1 teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Hoge, applied to claim 10, further teaches
wherein the measurement data to be separated is processed using a dual-polarity GRAPPA (DPG) algorithm ([0012]—[0013]), and the first and second sets of reference measurement data are also used as reference measurement data as part of the DPG algorithm ([0023]).
Regarding claim 11
Hoge in view of Zeller1 teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Hoge, applied to claim 11, further teaches
wherein a phase correction method is applied to the first set of reference measurement data and/or to the second set of reference measurement data in order to align a phase evolution of the reference measurement data in the sets of reference measurement data to those of the measurement data to be separated ([0006] & [0011]—[0013]).
Regarding claim 12
Hoge in view of Zeller1 teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Hoge, applied to claim 12, further teaches
wherein the measurement data to be separated is acquired using an acquisition technique from a group of acquisition techniques consisting of multi-shot EPI, spin echo EPI ([0024]), dual-spin-echo EPI, stimulated echo EPI, gradient echo EPI ([0024]), and GRASE (gradient and spin echo) EPI ([0031]).
Regarding claim 14
Hoge in view of Zeller1 teach the control device is designed to perform on the magnetic resonance system a method as claimed in claim 1.
Zeller1, applied to claim 14, further teaches
A magnetic resonance system ([0001]—[0003]), comprising:
a magnet unit (¶ 2 under Description);
a gradient unit (¶ 2 under Description);
a radiofrequency unit (¶ 2 under Description); and
a control device having a radiofrequency transmit/receive controller (¶ 8 above Claims) and a reference measurement data unit (¶ 7 under Description) wherein the control device is designed to perform on the magnetic resonance system a method as claimed in claim 1.
Claim(s) 4—6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoge et al. (US-20170038450-A1) in view of Zeller1 (EP-3462205-A1) in view of Irarrazaval (US-20130018252-A1).
Regarding claim 4
Hoge in view of Zeller1 teach the method as claimed in claim 3,
Hoge in view of Zeller1 do not teach
“wherein at least two sets of reference measurement data of the same type are combined into a combined set of reference
measurement data”.
Irarrazaval, however, teaches
wherein at least two sets of reference measurement data of the same type are combined into a combined set of reference
measurement data ([0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “combined reference data” as taught by Irarrazaval in the method of Hoge in view of Zeller1.
The justification for this modification would be to create a MRI technique that improves 2D phase-contrast imaging.
Regarding claim 5
Hoge in view of Zeller1 in view of Irarrazaval teach the method as claimed in claim 4,
Irarrazaval, applied to claim 5, further teaches
wherein the at least two sets of reference measurement data of the same type are combined such that at least one combined set of reference measurement data has a virtual echo time that effectively equals an echo time of a set of reference measurement data that was acquired using readout gradients of a different polarity
than the reference measurement data in the combined sets of reference measurement data ([0082]).
Regarding claim 6
Hoge in view of Zeller1 teach the method as claimed in claim 3,
Hoge in view of Zeller1 do not teach
“wherein, if at least two sets of reference measurement data of the same type have been acquired, the set of reference measurement data of the at least two sets
of reference measurement data of the same type that was acquired first in time is discarded”.
Irarrazaval, however, teaches
wherein, if at least two sets of reference measurement data of the same type have been acquired, the set of reference measurement data of the at least two sets of reference measurement data of the same type that was acquired first in time is discarded ([0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “combined reference data” as taught by Irarrazaval in the method of Hoge in view of Zeller1.
The justification for this modification would be to create a MRI technique that improves 2D phase-contrast imaging.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoge et al. (US-20170038450-A1) in view of Zeller1 (EP-3462205-A1) in view of Block et al. (US-6794867-B1).
Regarding claim 7
Hoge in view of Zeller1 teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Hoge in view of Zeller1 do not explicitly teach
“wherein the readout gradients used in the acquisition of the first set of reference measurement data and of the second set of reference measurement data
are selected such that they are as similar as possible to the readout gradients that were used in the capture of the measurement data in at least one parameter from a group of parameters consisting of size of amplitude, rise slew rate, duration, fall slew rate, readout bandwidth, resolution in a readout direction, positioning relative to the readout gradient of an acquisition window that is used, and symmetry of the echo”.
Block, however, teaches
wherein the readout gradients used in the acquisition of the first set of reference measurement data and of the second set of reference measurement data are selected such that they are as similar as possible to the readout gradients that were used in the capture of the measurement data in at least one parameter from a group of parameters consisting of size of amplitude, rise slew rate, duration, fall slew rate, readout bandwidth, resolution in a readout direction, positioning relative to the readout gradient of an acquisition window that is used, and symmetry of the echo (¶ 14 & line above Claims).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “parameters defining the readout gradient” as taught by Block in the method of Hoge in view of Zeller1.
The justification for this modification would be to adjust gradient parameters to remain in safe limits outlined by the SAR.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoge et al. (US-20170038450-A1) in view of Zeller1 (EP-3462205-A1) in view of Grodzki (US-20130069648-A1).
Regarding claim 13
Hoge in view of Zeller1 teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Hoge in view of Zeller1 do not teach
“wherein the measurement data was generated using a saturation technique and/or a spectrally selective excitation technique, with a result that the acquired echo signals originate in a spectrally selective manner from a spin species defined by the saturation technique and/or spectrally selective excitation technique, and a saturation technique and/or a spectrally selective excitation technique is likewise used in the acquisition of the first and second sets of reference measurement data, with a result that the acquired reference measurement data in the first and second sets of reference measurement data also originates in a spectrally selective manner from the same spin species as the echo signals from which the measurement data was generated”.
Grodzki, however, teaches
wherein the measurement data was generated using a saturation technique and/or a spectrally selective excitation technique, with a result that the acquired echo signals originate in a spectrally selective manner from a spin species defined by the saturation technique and/or spectrally selective excitation technique, and a
saturation technique and/or a spectrally selective excitation technique is likewise used in the acquisition of the first and second sets of reference measurement data, with a result that the acquired reference measurement data in the first and second sets of reference measurement data also originates in a spectrally selective manner from the same spin species as the echo signals from which the measurement data was generated ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “spectrally selective technique” as taught by Grodzki in the method of Hoge in view of Zeller1.
The justification for this modification would be to produce short echo times and suppress undesirable signals ([0014], Grodzki).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoge et al. (US-20170038450-A1) in view of Zeller1 (EP-3462205-A1) in view of Zeller2 (US-20200103484-A1).
Regarding claim 15
Hoge in view of Zeller1 teach the magnetic resonance system to perform the method as claimed in claim 1.
Hoge in view of Zeller1 do not teach
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising commands which, when executed by a control device of a magnetic resonance system, cause the magnetic resonance system to perform the method as claimed in claim 1”.
Zeller2, however, teaches
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising commands which, when executed by a control device of a magnetic resonance system, cause the magnetic resonance system to perform the method as claimed in claim 1 (Claim 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “non-transitory storage medium” as taught by Zeller2 in the method/system of Hoge in view of Zeller1.
The justification for this modification would be to have a way to store the MRI program permanently in case of accidental machine power-down.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK WENDEROTH whose telephone number is (571)270-1945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m. - 4 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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/Frederick Wenderoth/
Examiner, Art Unit 2852