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 20 is canceled.
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 19 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims recite a computer-readable medium but are not limited to non-transitory embodiments thereof. See Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media; Jan. 26, 2010; 1351 Off. Gaz. 201.
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, 4, 9, 10, 13, 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bammer et al. (US-20090284257-A1) in view of Schneider et al. (US-5545995-A).
Regarding claim 1
Bammer discloses
A method for gradient sensitivity correction ([0015]), implemented by at least one processor ([0024]), comprising:
Bammer does not disclose
“obtaining a three-dimensional image of a phantom, the three-dimensional image being acquired using a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device, and the phantom having a known actual size on a target axis;
determining a fitting size of the phantom on the target axis by fitting the
three-dimensional image; and
correcting, based on the fitting size and the actual size, a gradient sensitivity
of the MRI device”.
Schneider, however discloses
obtaining a three-dimensional image of a phantom (ABSTRACT, ¶ 2 under (7) SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION), the three-dimensional image being acquired using a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device (¶ 1 under (7) SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION), and the phantom having a known actual size
on a target axis (¶ 8 under 1) DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT);
determining a fitting size of the phantom on the target axis by fitting the
three-dimensional image (Claim 10, the cross-sectional tapered rods of the phantom are measured three-dimensionally on the axes); and
correcting, based on the fitting size and the actual size, a gradient sensitivity
of the MRI device (¶ 1 & 2 under (7) SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION).
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 “correction to gradient sensitivity based on phantom size” as taught by Schneider in the method of Bammer.
The justification for this modification would be to correct the “gradient sensitivity” of the MRI machine to ensure good image fidelity.
Regarding claim 10
Bammer discloses
A system for gradient sensitivity correction ([0015]), comprising:
a storage device configured to store computer instructions ([0024]); and
a processor connected with the storage device and configured to, when the
computer instructions are executed ([0024], instructions are inherent in a computer), direct the system to:
Bammer does not disclose
“obtain a three-dimensional image of a phantom, the three-dimensional
image being acquired using a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device,
and the phantom having a known actual size on a target axis;
determine a fitting size of the phantom on the target axis by fitting the
three-dimensional image; and
correct, based on the fitting size and the actual size, a gradient
sensitivity of the MRI device”.
Schneider, however, discloses
obtain a three-dimensional image of a phantom (ABSTRACT, ¶ 2 under (7) SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION), the three-dimensional
image being acquired using a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device (¶ 1 under (7) SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION), and the phantom having a known actual size on a target axis (¶ 8 under 1) DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT);
determine a fitting size of the phantom on the target axis by fitting the
three-dimensional image (Claim 10, the cross-sectional tapered rods of the phantom are measured three-dimensionally on the axes); and
correct, based on the fitting size and the actual size, a gradient sensitivity of the MRI device (¶ 1 & 2 under (7) SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION).
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 “correction to gradient sensitivity based on phantom size” as taught by Schneider in the method of Bammer.
The justification for this modification would be to correct the “gradient sensitivity” of the MRI machine to ensure good image fidelity.
Regarding claim 13
Bammer in view of Schneider teach the system of claim 10,
Schneider, applied to claim 13, further teaches
wherein the determining a fitting size of the phantom on the target axis by fitting the three-dimensional image (¶ 8 & 9 under (1) DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT) includes:
determining, based on the three-dimensional image, at least one central
section ((¶ 8 -10 under (1) DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT); and
determining, based on the at least one central section, the fitting size of the
phantom on the target axis (Claim 10).
Regarding claim 4
The steps of the method claim 4 are met by the operation of apparatus claim 13.
Regarding claim 18
Bammer in view of Schneider teach the system of claim 10,
Schneider applied to claim 18 further teaches
wherein the target axis includes three coordinate axes corresponding a
coordinate system (¶ 6 above “Claims”), the coordinate system is established with a central position of a magnet imaging region of the MRI device as an origin, and with three spatially orthogonal axes as three axial directions, respectively (¶ 9 & 10 above “Claims”).
Regarding claim 9
The steps of the method claim 9 are met by the operation of apparatus claim 18.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bammer et al. (US-20090284257-A1) in view of Schneider et al. (US-5545995-A) in view of Ramezanzadeh (US-20160310762-A1).
Regarding claim 11
Bammer in view of Schneider teach the system of claim 10,
Bammer in view of Schneider do not teach
“wherein the phantom is a spherical phantom”.
Ramezanzadeh, however, teaches
wherein the phantom is a spherical phantom ([0033]).
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 “spherical phantom” as taught by Ramezanzadeh in the system of Bammer in view of Schneider.
The justification for this modification would be to calibrate the MRI machine.
Regarding claim 2
The steps of the method claim 2 are met by the operation of apparatus claim 11.
Regarding claim 12
Bammer in view of Schneider teach the system of claim 10,
Bammer in view of Schneider do not teach
“wherein the phantom is a non-spherical phantom, and the non-spherical phantom is positioned based on the target axis”.
Ramezanzadeh, however, discloses
wherein the phantom is a non-spherical phantom, and the non-spherical phantom is positioned based on the target axis ([0033]).
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-spherical phantom” as taught by Ramezanzadeh in the system of Bammer in view of Schneider.
The justification for this modification would be to better mimic real human anatomy when testing and resolving field distortions within the machine
Regarding claim 3
The steps of the method claim 3 are met by the operation of apparatus claim 12.
Claim(s) 8, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bammer et al. (US-20090284257-A1) in view of Schneider et al. (US-5545995-A) in view of Yamaoka (JP-2019115546-A).
Regarding claim 17
Bammer in view of Schneider teach the system of claim 10,
Bammer in view of Schneider do not teach
“wherein the MRI device includes a cantilever bed, and the phantom is placed on the cantilever bed”.
Yamaoka, however, discloses
wherein the MRI device includes a cantilever bed, and the phantom is placed on the cantilever bed (¶ 3 above REFERENCE-SIGNS-LIST).
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 “cantilever bed” as taught by Yamaoka in the system of Bammer in view of Schneider.
The justification for this modification would be to help minimize noise from gradient coils, and when using a phantom, achieve a more accurate calibration for the MRI machine.
Regarding claim 8
The steps of the method claim 8 are met by the operation of apparatus claim 17.
Claim(s) 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramezanzadeh (US-20160310762-A1) in view of Bammer et al. (US-20090284257-A1) in view of Schneider et al. (US-5545995-A).
Regarding claim 19
Ramezanzadeh discloses
A computer-readable storage medium storing computer instructions that, when a computer reads the computer instructions (Claim 1),
Ramezanzadeh does not disclose
“direct the computer to execute a method for gradient sensitivity correction, including:
obtaining a three-dimensional image of a phantom, the three-dimensional image being acquired using a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device, and the phantom having a known actual size on a target axis;
determining a fitting size of the phantom on the target axis by fitting the
three-dimensional image; and
correcting, based on the fitting size and the actual size, a gradient sensitivity
of the MRI device”.
Bammer, however discloses
direct the computer to execute a method for gradient sensitivity correction, ([0015]),
Ramezanzadeh in view of Bammer do not teach
“obtaining a three-dimensional image of a phantom, the three-dimensional image being acquired using a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device, and the phantom having a known actual size on a target axis;
determining a fitting size of the phantom on the target axis by fitting the
three-dimensional image; and
correcting, based on the fitting size and the actual size, a gradient sensitivity
of the MRI device,”
Schneider, however, discloses
obtaining a three-dimensional image of a phantom (ABSTRACT, ¶ 2 under (7) SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION), the three-dimensional image being acquired using a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device (¶ 1 under (7) SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION), and the phantom having a known actual size
on a target axis (¶ 8 under 1) DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT);
determining a fitting size of the phantom on the target axis by fitting the
three-dimensional image (Claim 10, the cross-sectional tapered rods of the phantom are measured three-dimensionally on the axes); and
correcting, based on the fitting size and the actual size, a gradient sensitivity
of the MRI device (¶ 1 & 2 under (7) SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION).
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 “correction to gradient sensitivity based on phantom size” as taught by Schneider in the method of Bammer.
The justification for this modification would be 1) to correct the “gradient sensitivity” of the MRI machine to ensure good image fidelity, and 2) to have a non-transitory way to store the MRI computer program in case of machine power-down.
Regarding claim 21
Ramezanzadeh in view of Bammer in view of Schneider teach the computer-readable storage medium of claim 19,
Schneider, applied to claim 21, further teaches
wherein the determining a fitting size of the phantom on the target axis by fitting the three-dimensional image includes (¶ 6 – 8 under (1) DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT):
determining, based on the three-dimensional image, at least one central
section (¶ 6 – 8 under (1) DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT); and
determining, based on the at least one central section, the fitting size of the
phantom on the target axis (Claim 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 7 & 14 – 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“in response to determining that the difference does not satisfy the preset condition, correcting the gradient sensitivity of the MRI device to obtain a corrected gradient sensitivity”.
In combination with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 6 & 7
The claims are allowable due to their dependencies on object-to claim 5.
Regarding claim 14
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“in response to determining that the difference does not satisfy the preset
condition, correcting the gradient sensitivity of the MRI device to obtain a corrected gradient sensitivity.”
In combination with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claims 15 & 16
The claims are allowable due to their dependencies on object-to claim 14.
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.
/Frederick Wenderoth/
Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852