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 7 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.
Examiner does not understand the phrase at the end of the claim
“and exclude a coil element that is not included in the imaging guarantee area”.
It would be helpful if Applicant could further define what they mean by this phrase.
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, 2, 6, 7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leussler (WO-2020234207-A1) in view of Nakamura (JP-2011254633-A).
Regarding claim 1
Leussler discloses
A magnetic resonance imaging apparatus (¶ 1 BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION) comprising:
an imaging unit that includes a multiple-channel receiver (¶ 5 BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION) which receives a nuclear magnetic resonance signal generated by a subject to be examined (¶ 3 BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION); and
one or more processors that controls the imaging unit (¶ 6 BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION),
wherein the one or more processors (¶ 2, 3 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS) are configured to acquire an image from a camera
disposed in the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus (¶ 25, 26 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS),
specify a target position of imaging on the subject to be examined (¶/lines 80 above “Claims”), and
collate a camera image (¶/lines 72 above “Claims”, the camera acquires many images, so “collated”),
Leussler does not disclose
“which is acquired by the acquisition of the camera image and shows the subject to be examined on which a reception coil including a plurality of coil elements is mounted, with design information of the reception coil and
determine a coil element of the reception coil that covers the specified target position”.
Nakamura, however, teaches
which is acquired by the acquisition of the camera image and shows the subject to be examined on which a reception coil including a plurality of coil elements is mounted, with design information of the reception coil and
determine a coil element of the reception coil that covers the specified target position (¶ 6 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 “camera to image the target position” as taught by Nakamura in the apparatus of Leussler.
The justification for this modification would be to gather information about the positioning of the coil or patient or both in the MRI bore.
Regarding claim 2
Leussler in view of Nakamura teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 1,
Nakamura, applied to claim 2, further teaches
wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive a designation of a position by a user using a camera image which shows the subject to be examined before mounting the reception coil, and specify the designated position as the target position (¶ 4 above REFERENCE-SIGNS-LIST).
Regarding claim 6
Leussler in view of Nakamura teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 1,
Leussler, applied to claim 6, further teaches
wherein one or more processors are configured to determine a coil region in which the coil element covering the target position is disposed such that the coil region includes a predetermined FOV (¶/line 14 above “REFERENCE NUMERALS).
Regarding claim 7
Leussler in view of Nakamura teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 1,
Leussler, applied to claim 7, further discloses
wherein one or more processors (¶ 2 under DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS) are configured to acquire information on an imaging guarantee area determined based on characteristics of a static magnetic field (inherent in an MRI machine) and a gradient magnetic field of the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus (¶ 16 under DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS) and exclude a coil element that is not included in the imaging guarantee area.
Regarding claim 16
Leussler discloses
An automatic channel selection method of a multi-channel reception coil (¶ 5 BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION), the method being for selecting a coil element of a multiple-channel reception coil (¶ 5 BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION) used in a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus (¶ 1 BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION), the method comprising:
a step of acquiring an image from a camera disposed in the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus (¶ 25, 26 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS),
a step of specifying a target position on a subject to be examined on which the reception coil is mounted (¶/lines 80 above “Claims”); and
Leussler does not disclose
“a step of collating a camera image, which shows the subject to be examined on which the reception coil including a plurality of the coil elements is mounted, and the target position with design information of the reception coil and
determining a coil element of the reception coil that includes the target position”.
Nakamura, however, teaches
a step of collating a camera image, which shows the subject to be examined on which the reception coil including a plurality of the coil elements is mounted, and the target position with design information of the reception coil and
determining a coil element of the reception coil that includes the target position (¶ 6 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 “camera to image the target position” as taught by Nakamura in the apparatus of Leussler.
The justification for this modification would be to gather information about the positioning of the coil or patient or both in the MRI bore.
Claim(s) 3, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leussler (WO-2020234207-A1) in view of Nakamura (JP-2011254633-A) in view of Sakuragi (WO-2014050019-A1).
Regarding claim 3
Leussler in view of Nakamura teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 2,
Leussler in view of Nakamura do not teach
“wherein one or more processors are configured to analyze the camera image including the designated position of the user by using an anatomical database and specify a predetermined site in the anatomical database as the target position”.
Sakuragi, however, teaches
wherein one or more processors are configured to analyze the camera image including the designated position of the user by using an anatomical database (¶ 5 above “Claims”) and specify a predetermined site in the anatomical database as the target position (¶ 9 under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS).
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 anatomical data base” as taught by Sakuragi in the method of Leussler in view of Nakamura.
The justification for this modification would be to store the images to a server that can share the image quickly with medical professionals.
Regarding claim 17
Leussler in view of Nakamura teach the automatic channel selection method of a multi-channel reception coil according to claim 16,
Although strongly implied, Leussler in view of Nakamura do not explicitly teach
“wherein the step of specifying the target position includes a step of receiving a designation of a site by a user in the displayed camera image, and the received site is specified as the target position.”
Sakuragi, however, teaches
wherein the step of specifying the target position includes a step of receiving a designation of a site by a user in the displayed camera image, and the received site is specified as the target position (¶ 9 under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS).
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 “user interface for site designation” as taught by Sakuragi in the method of Leussler in view of Nakamura.
The justification for this modification would be to allow the user to easily choose and switch specific anatomical sites to image.
Regarding claim 18
Leussler in view of Nakamura teach the automatic channel selection method of a multi-channel reception coil according to claim 16,
Although strongly implied, Leussler in view of Nakamura do not explicitly teach
“wherein the step of specifying the target position includes a step of analyzing the camera image by using an anatomical database and a step of specifying one of a plurality of sites included in the anatomical database as a target site, and a position of the camera image that corresponds to the specified target site is specified as the target position”.
Sakuragi, however, teaches
wherein the step of specifying the target position includes a step of analyzing the camera image by using an anatomical database (¶ 5 above “Claims”) and a step of specifying one of a plurality of sites included in the anatomical database as a target site, and a position of the camera image that corresponds to the
specified target site is specified as the target position (¶ 9 under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS).
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 anatomical data base” as taught by Sakuragi in the method of Leussler in view of Nakamura.
The justification for this modification would be to store the images to a server that can share the image quickly with medical professionals.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leussler (WO-2020234207-A1) in view of Nakamura (JP-2011254633-A) in view of Kawano et al. (US-20200034007-A1).
Regarding claim 4
Leussler in view of Nakamura teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 1,
Although strongly implied, Leussler in view of Nakamura do not definitively teach
“wherein one or more processors, upon specifying a target position, receive a designation of a position by a user using a pre-scan image of the subject to be examined, which is acquired in advance by the imaging unit and is displayed on a display device, and specifies the designated position as the target position”.
Kawano, however, teaches
wherein one or more processors, upon specifying a target position, receive a designation of a position by a user using a pre-scan image of the subject to be examined, which is acquired in advance by the imaging unit and is displayed on a display device, and specifies the designated position as the target position (Claim 5)
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 “pre-scan to define the targeted position” as taught by Kawano in the apparatus of Leussler in view of Nakamura.
The justification for this modification would be to use the pre-scan to focus in on the final FOV and targeted position.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leussler (WO-2020234207-A1) in view of Nakamura (JP-2011254633-A) in view of Paxton (CN-113269299-A).
Regarding claim 15
Leussler in view of Nakamura teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 1,
Leussler in view of Nakamura do not teach
“wherein the camera is a camera including any one of a fisheye lens, a subject tracking mechanism, or a video function, and the one or more processors
are configured to acquire information on a camera image including a temporal change or a spatial change of a subject as the camera image”.
Paxton, however, teaches
wherein the camera is a camera including any one of a fisheye lens (¶ 6 under Autonomous vehicle), a subject tracking mechanism, or a video function (¶ 7 under Data centre), and the one or more processors are configured to acquire
information on a camera image including a temporal change or a spatial change of a subject as the camera image (Claim 19).
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 “fisheye lens camera with tracking facility” as taught by Paxton in the apparatus of Leussler in view of Nakamura.
The justification for this modification would be to have a camera with a wide angle of vision (fish-eye lens) and the ability to take video.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8 – 14 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
“the one or more processors are configured to collate a marker position included in the camera image with the design information of the reception coil and determine the coil element of the reception coil”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 8
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein the one or more processors are configured to calculate a position of the reception coil on apparatus coordinates from a camera image which shows the subject to be examined and the marker of the bed, and determine the coil element of the reception coil that covers the target position by using the position of the coil on the apparatus coordinates, the target position specified by the one or more processors, and the design information of the reception coil”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 9
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein one or more processors are configured to calculate a position of the reception coil on apparatus coordinates from a camera image which shows the subject to be examined on which the reception coil is mounted and the marker of the bed, and determine the coil element of the reception coil that covers the target position by using the position of the coil on the apparatus coordinates, the target position specified by the one or more processors, and the design information of the reception coil”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claims 10 & 11
Regarding claim 12
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein markers are attached to the reception coil at equal intervals, and
the one or more processors are configured to calculate bending of the reception coil from the interval of the markers included in the camera image, correct the bending of the reception coil, then collate the corrected bending with the design information of the reception coil, and
determine the coil element of the reception coil”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 13
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein the reception coil is fixed to the subject to be examined by using a flexible belt, and markers are attached to the flexible belt at equal intervals along a
longitudinal direction of the flexible belt, and the one or more processors are configured to calculate bending of the reception coil from the interval of the markers included in the camera image, correct the bending of the reception
coil, then collate the corrected bending with the design information of the reception coil, and determine the coil element of the reception coil”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 14
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein the one or more processors are configured to detect a folding line of the reception coil from the camera image which shows the subject to be examined on which the reception coil is mounted, and specify a coil element of another part of the reception coil, which is line-symmetric to a coil element determined for a part of the reception coil shown in the camera image with respect to the folding line, and determine the coil element of the part and the coil element of the other part as the coil elements of the reception coil”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
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