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 Objections
Claims 2 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 is objected to because the preamble of “The device of any of the claim 1” should read, “The device of claim 1”. Claim 11 is objected to because “trajecctory segmetn” is misspelled. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1:
A sensor input configured to receive
A data input configured to receive
Claim 9:
A feedback output configured to provide
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 1:
A sensor input configured to receive is considered to be a sensor or a plurality of sensors described in Paragraph [0128] of the PG-Publication.
A data input configured to receive is considered to be part of an MRI system to collect data as described in Paragraph [0130]).
Claim 9:
A feedback output configured to provide is considered to be visual, audible or tactical devices configured to convey information as set forth in Paragraph [0129] of the PG-Publication.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-14 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. Claim 1 is rejected because the limitation of “the or each trajectory” is indefinite. Claim 1 is also rejected because “the time”, “the nearest point” and “the center” all lack proper antecedent basis. Claim 13 appears to have the same issues and Claims 12 and 14 inherit the issues of the dependent claims 1 and 13. Claim 9 is rejected because “the breathing behavior” lacks proper antecedent basis.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 14 is merely directed to a computer program and under its broadest reasonable interpretation could be directed to a signal per se. Examiner suggests including reciting a non-transitory computer readable medium (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8 and 10-14 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2016/0018497 to Park et al. “Park” in view of U.S Publication No. 2020/0249304 to Zhong et al. “Zhong”.
As for Claims 1 and 12-14, Park discloses an MRI system and method including a device for respiratory monitoring of a subject during the MRI scan (Abstract) comprising a sensor input configured to receive sensor data for determining at least one respiratory parameter therefrom and to continually monitor the respiration during the MRI scan (Paragraphs [0146]); a data input (e.g. MRI processor input) configured to receive MRI data including k-space values of at least one trajectory segment in a k-space matrix (Paragraphs [0009], [0017], [0055] and [0062]), a controller output and processor (Paragraph [0055]; Fig. 1 and corresponding descriptions) wherein the processor is adapted to use the monitored respiratory parameter to determine prospectively, a point in time when the respiration will correspond to a reference respiratory state (e.g. end expiration) and control acquisition parameters to acquire k-space data (having a center in a matrix) at the point in time (Paragraphs [0113]-[0122]; Figs. 8, 10, 11, 15 and corresponding descriptions). In one embodiment, Park classifies k-space data into 4 phases of respiration in order to fill k-space data with the desired phase data (Paragraphs [0157]-[0163]).
However, Park does not expressly disclose a processing step to determine a phase offset and applying the phase offset to the k-space data as claimed.
Zhong teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to MRI systems and methods that compensate for respiratory motion artifacts (Abstract) wherein calibration data is cross-correlated with x and y directions of k-space to calculate k-space sample shifts in kx and ky directions respectively (Paragraphs [0007] and [0038]). Examiner notes that ky axis of k-space is a phase direction evidenced by Park (Park-Paragraph [0113]). Zhong further teaches using the aforementioned shifts to correct k-space trajectories (Paragraph [0007]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified Park’s MRI system and method to correct out of phase k-space data as described by Zhong in order to enhance the amount of quality data in the desired respiratory phase. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 2, Park depicts a plurality of points in time where the respiration will correspond to a reference respiratory state such that appropriate k-space data may be used to reconstruct an image (Figs. 10, 15 and corresponding descriptions).
With respect to Claims 5 and 7, Park explains wherein MRI data is continually acquired and stored over respiration cycles (Paragraph [0067]) and wherein a plurality of acquisitions are used to fill up k-space and reconstruct images (Paragraphs [0020], [0023], [0030] and [0062]). Examiner notes in the modified system and method, Park’s reconstructor would reconstruct images based on the phase adjusted k-space data in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
As for Claim 6, the k-space data is annotated with various phases (Park; Fig. 15 and corresponding descriptions).
Regarding Claim 8, Park discloses where an interpolation method may be applied to data filled in the k-space already (Paragraph [0155]).
As for Claim 10, Park’s Figs. 10 and 15 depict synchronized sensor and MRI image data in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
With respect to Claim 11, Park’s processor determines points in time when the k-space data corresponds to a desired phase as described above. The k-space data has a center of a matrix which is based on acquisition parameters in its broadest reasonable interpretations.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Zhong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0342591 to Majeed et al. “Majeed”
As for Claim 4, Park and Zhong disclose an MRI system and method including a respiratory device as described above. However, the art of record does not appear to include a step to register a stored image to determine motion artifacts (e.g. phase offset).
Majeed teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to MRI systems and methods (Abstract) where a plurality of basis images are computed from registered images and used to remove motion-relate phase changes from a second series of MR images, thereby yielding motion corrected images (Abstract).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have further modified the MRI system and method described by Park and Zhong to register images to stored images from a previous scan to correct for motion related phase changes as described by Majeed in order to improve quality of image reconstruction by correcting motion related artifacts. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
As for Claim 3, Park explains where an MR image is reconstructed using sparse in a k-phase direction by applying the aforementioned techniques (Paragraphs [0162] and [0184]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Zhong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0084602 to Van EE et al. “Van EE”
As for Claim 4, Park and Zhong disclose an MRI system and method including a respiratory device as described above. However, the art of record does not appear to include a feedback output to guide the patient’s breathing during the scan as claimed.
Van EE teaches from within a similar field of an endeavor with respect to MRI systems and methods (Abstract) wherein a breathing guidance system can be used to control the breathing of the patient and thereby enable an improved scan (Paragraphs [0018], [0075] and [0078]-[0079]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have further modified the MRI system and method described by Park and Zhong with a breathing guidance system as described by Van EE in order to improve scanning quality. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Publication No. 2014/0079305 to Akcakaya et al. “Akcakaya” which discloses determining a phase shift in motion affected images (Paragraph [0043} and using it to correct discarded lines of k-space (Paragraphs [0045]-[0048]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER L COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approximately 8AM-5PM.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER L COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797