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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mental process without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because all the steps could be performed by a mental process. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no limitations of actually performing the target scanning protocol with the MR device and acquiring an MR image by performing the target scanning protocol.
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 8 and 16 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 8, the limitation “wherein the controlling the MR device to scan a target object according to the target scanning protocol includes: obtaining a pre-stored calibration value of a system parameter corresponding to the first gradient coil type; updating the system parameter of the MR device based on the calibration value of the system parameter” is considered unclear. First, “the system parameter of the MR device” lacks antecedent basis. It is also unclear if “a pre-stored calibration value of a system parameter corresponding to the first gradient coil type” corresponds to “the system parameter of the MR device” because “gradient coil type” and “MR device” are different. Further, it is not clear what “updating” would mean in this context then.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-2, 7-10, 15, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ludwig (US 2017/0322278).
Regarding claim 1, Ludwig teaches a method for configuring a magnetic resonance (MR) scanning protocol, comprising:
determining a first gradient coil type of a first gradient coil currently connected to an MR device [¶0080-0081, see GR(DEF, 456) of the current DEF scanner. See also rest of reference.];
determining, based on an initial scanning protocol input by a user, at least one second gradient coil type applicable to the initial scanning protocol [¶0080-0081, see GR(ABC, 123) of the initial ABC scanner and of measurement protocol MP1*. See also rest of reference.]; and
determining a target scanning protocol based on the first gradient coil type, the at least one second gradient coil type, and the initial scanning protocol [¶0079-0082, see measurement protocol MP2*. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 2, Ludwig further teaches wherein the determining a target scanning protocol based on the first gradient coil type, the at least one second gradient coil type, and the initial scanning protocol includes:
determining whether the first gradient coil type is included in the at least one second gradient coil type [¶0082, determining when the measurement protocol is transferred from ABC scanner to another ABC scanner. See also rest of reference.]; and
in response to determining that the first gradient coil type is included in the at least one second gradient coil type, determining the initial scanning protocol as the target scanning protocol [¶0082, determining when the measurement protocol is transferred from ABC scanner to another ABC scanner, then no conversion need to be made. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Ludwig further teaches further comprising: controlling the MR device to scan a target object according to the target scanning protocol [¶0092. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 8, Ludwig further teaches wherein the controlling the MR device to scan a target object according to the target scanning protocol includes: obtaining a pre-stored calibration value of a system parameter corresponding to the first gradient coil type [See ABC type vs DEF type as the calibration value. See also rest of reference.]; updating the system parameter of the MR device based on the calibration value of the system parameter [See ABC type vs DEF type as the calibration value. Measurement parameters of the protocols MP1* or MP2* are updated according to the ABC/DEF type. See also rest of reference.]; and controlling the MR device whose system parameter has been updated to scan the target object according to the target scanning protocol [¶0092, wherein the updated protocol MP2* is executed. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 9, the same reasons of rejection as claim 1 also applies to claim 9. Claim 9 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the same reasons of rejection as claim 2 also applies to claim 10. Claim 10 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, the same reasons of rejection as claim 7 also applies to claim 15. Claim 15 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, the same reasons of rejection as claim 8 also applies to claim 16. Claim 16 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, the same reasons of rejection as claim 1 also applies to claim 17. Claim 17 is merely the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the same reasons of rejection as claim 2 also applies to claim 18. Claim 18 is merely the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of method claim 2.
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 3-6, 11-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Ludwig, in view of Feiweier (US 2020/0143935).
Regarding claim 3, Ludwig teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Ludwig further teaches wherein the determining a target scanning protocol based on the first gradient coil type, the at least one second gradient coil type, and the initial scanning protocol includes: determining whether the first gradient coil type is included in the at least one second gradient coil type [¶0079-0081, see GR(ABC, 123) and see GR(DEF, 456) gradient coil types. See also rest of reference.]; in response to determining that the first gradient coil type is not included in the at least one second gradient coil type, generating an intermediate scanning protocol based on the first gradient coil type [See MP2*. See also rest of reference.].
However, Ludwig is silent in teaching obtaining the target scanning protocol by converting, based on the intermediate scanning protocol, the initial scanning protocol.
Feweier, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the determining a target scanning protocol based on the first gradient coil type, the at least one second gradient coil type, and the initial scanning protocol includes: determining whether the first gradient coil type is included in the at least one second gradient coil type [¶0061, ¶0118-0119, wherein there is no overlapping range. ¶0036 teaches the gradient components are the system components. See also rest of reference.]; in response to determining that the first gradient coil type is not included in the at least one second gradient coil type, generating an intermediate scanning protocol based on the first gradient coil type [¶0061, ¶0118-0119, wherein there is no overlapping range. See (sub-) scan protocol values for the other imaging system. See also rest of reference.]; and obtaining the target scanning protocol by converting, based on the intermediate scanning protocol, the initial scanning protocol [¶0061, ¶0118-0119, see hybrid protocol which uses the (sub-) scan protocol values of the imaging system and (sub-) scan protocol values for the other imaging system. 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 Ludwig and Feweier because both references are in the field of adjust parameter values for different components of MRI apparatuses and because Feiweier teaches it is known in the art to use value ranges for parameter values, which would lead to more options/flexibility when setting parameter values.
Regarding claim 4, Ludwig and Feiweier teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Ludwig further teaches wherein the intermediate scanning protocol includes a first parameter of each of at least one scanning parameter, and the generating an intermediate scanning protocol based on the first gradient coil type includes: determining a calibration value of a system parameter corresponding to the first gradient coil type [See ABC type vs DEF type as the calibration value. See also rest of reference.]; and generating the intermediate scanning protocol by determining, based on the calibration value of the system parameter, the first parameter of each of the at least one scanning parameter [See ABC type vs DEF type as the calibration value. The parameter values are determined as a function of scanner type ABC vs. DEF. See Figs. 3-4 and corresponding descriptions. See also rest of reference.].
However, Ludwig is silent in teaching a first parameter range.
Feiweier further teaches a first parameter range [See value range. See also rest of reference.] and wherein the intermediate scanning protocol includes a first parameter range of each of at least one scanning parameter, and the generating an intermediate scanning protocol based on the first gradient coil type includes: determining a calibration value of a system parameter corresponding to the first gradient coil type [The imaging system and other imaging system can be considered calibration values. See also rest of reference.]; and generating the intermediate scanning protocol by determining, based on the calibration value of the system parameter, the first parameter range of each of the at least one scanning parameter [¶0061, ¶0118-0119, see hybrid protocol which uses the (sub-) scan protocol values of the imaging system and (sub-) scan protocol values for the other imaging system. 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 Ludwig and Feweier because both references are in the field of adjust parameter values for different components of MRI apparatuses and because Feiweier teaches it is known in the art to use value ranges for parameter values, which would lead to more options/flexibility when setting parameter values.
Regarding claim 5, Ludwig and Feiweier teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Ludwig teaches wherein the intermediate scanning protocol includes a first parameter of each of at least one scanning parameter [See parameter values of MP2*. See also rest of reference.], and the generating an intermediate scanning protocol based on the first gradient coil type includes: obtaining at least one reference protocol corresponding to the first gradient coil type, the at least one reference protocol including a reference value of each of the at least one scanning parameter [See parameter values of MP1*. See also rest of reference.]; and generating the intermediate scanning protocol by determining, based on the reference value of each of the at least one scanning parameter, the first parameter of each of the at least one scanning parameter [See parameter values of MP2*. See also rest of reference.].
Ludwig is silent in teaching a first parameter range and a reference range.
Feiweier further teaches a first parameter range and a reference range [See value range. See also rest of reference.]. Feiweier further teaches wherein the intermediate scanning protocol includes a first parameter range of each of at least one scanning parameter, and the generating an intermediate scanning protocol based on the first gradient coil type includes: obtaining at least one reference protocol corresponding to the first gradient coil type, the at least one reference protocol including a reference range of each of the at least one scanning parameter; and generating the intermediate scanning protocol by determining, based on the reference range of each of the at least one scanning parameter, the first parameter range of each of the at least one scanning parameter [¶0061. See also rest of reference which teaches hybrid compatibility modes. 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 Ludwig and Feweier because both references are in the field of adjust parameter values for different components of MRI apparatuses and because Feiweier teaches it is known in the art to use value ranges for parameter values, which would lead to more options/flexibility when setting parameter values.
Regarding claim 6, Ludwig and Feiweier teach the limitations of claim 3, which this claim depends from.
Ludwig further teaches wherein the intermediate scanning protocol includes a first parameter of each of at least one scanning parameter, the initial scanning protocol includes a second parameter of each of the at least one scanning parameter, and the obtaining the target scanning protocol by converting, based on the intermediate scanning protocol [See parameter values of MP1* and MP2*. See also rest of reference.].
However, Ludwig is silent in teaching a first parameter range, a second parameter range, and the obtaining the target scanning protocol by converting, based on the intermediate scanning protocol, the initial scanning protocol includes: for each of the at least one scanning parameter, determining an intersection range between the first parameter range and the second parameter range of the scanning parameter; and obtaining the target scanning protocol by updating, based on at least one intersection range of the at least one scanning parameter, the initial scanning protocol.
Feiweier further teaches wherein the intermediate scanning protocol includes a first parameter range of each of at least one scanning parameter [See value range. See also rest of reference.], the initial scanning protocol includes a second parameter range of each of the at least one scanning parameter [See value range. See also rest of reference.], and the obtaining the target scanning protocol by converting, based on the intermediate scanning protocol, the initial scanning protocol includes: for each of the at least one scanning parameter, determining an intersection range between the first parameter range and the second parameter range of the scanning parameter [See overlap range. See also rest of reference.]; and obtaining the target scanning protocol by updating, based on at least one intersection range of the at least one scanning parameter, the initial scanning protocol [See overlap range. ¶0008-0030, ¶0060-0064. 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 Ludwig and Feweier because both references are in the field of adjust parameter values for different components of MRI apparatuses and because Feiweier teaches it is known in the art to use value ranges for parameter values, which would lead to more options/flexibility when setting parameter values.
Regarding claim 11, the same reasons of rejection as claim 3 also applies to claim 11. Claim 11 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, the same reasons of rejection as claim 4 also applies to claim 12. Claim 12 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, the same reasons of rejection as claim 5 also applies to claim 13. Claim 13 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, the same reasons of rejection as claim 6 also applies to claim 14 Claim 14 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, the same reasons of rejection as claim 3 also applies to claim 19. Claim 19 is merely the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of method claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, the same reasons of rejection as claim 4 also applies to claim 20. Claim 20 is merely the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of method claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2015/0346308 is considered relevant because the reference also teaches adjusting pulse sequence parameters based on hardware changes [¶0032].
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