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 § 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, 7 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeno (JP-2017113410-A) in view of Sacolick et al. (US-20160131727-A1) in view of Wang (WO-2006049753-A1).
Regarding claim 1
Maeno discloses
A magnetic resonance imaging apparatus that captures a magnetic resonance image of a subject (¶ 1 under BACKGROUND-ART), the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus comprising:
a high-frequency coil (¶ 5 under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS);
a gradient magnetic field generation coil (¶ 5 under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS);
a static magnetic field generation coil that has an inductance larger than an inductance of the high-frequency coil and an inductance of the gradient magnetic
field generation coil, the static magnetic field generation coil being a superconducting coil (¶ 8 under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, a superconducting coil has, by definition, and extremely high inductance higher than conventional coils, so higher than the “high-frequency” and “gradient” coil);
an energization controller that energizes the static magnetic field generation coil (¶ 5 under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, the controller controls the MRI machine, coils, among them the superconducting magnet);
Maeno does not disclose
“a voltage measurement unit that measures a voltage between current lead terminals of the static magnetic field generation coil; and
a magnetic material detection unit that detects a magnetic material existing in an imaging space of the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus and a magnetic material existing in a vicinity of the imaging space based on a first voltage that is a voltage measured in a state in which the static magnetic field generation coil is energized with a first current less than a rated current in a case of capturing the magnetic resonance image”.
Sacolick, however, discloses
a voltage measurement unit that measures a voltage between current lead terminals of the static magnetic field generation coil ([0111]); and
Maeno in view of Sacolick do not teach
“a magnetic material detection unit that detects a magnetic material existing in an imaging space of the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus and a magnetic material existing in a vicinity of the imaging space based on a first voltage that is a voltage measured in a state in which the static magnetic field generation coil is energized with a first current less than a rated current in a case of capturing the magnetic resonance image”.
Wang, however, teaches
a magnetic material detection unit that detects a magnetic material existing in an imaging space of the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus and a magnetic material existing in a vicinity of the imaging space (¶ 3 under THE MAGNETIC PERMEABILITY OF THE NANOMAGNETIC MATERIAL) based on a first voltage that is a voltage measured in a state in which the static magnetic field generation coil is energized with a first current less than a rated current in a case of capturing the magnetic resonance image (¶ 3 above ONE PREFERRED COATED STENT ASSEMBLY)
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 “voltage measurement of the B.sub.0 field” as taught by Sacolick as well as the “magnetic imaging facility” as taught by Wang in the apparatus of Maeno.
The justification for this modification would be to adjust the B.sub.0 field for inhomogeneities when imaging magnetic entities.
Regarding claim 7
Maeno in view of Sacolick in view of Wang teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 1,
Wang, applied to claim 7, further teaches
further comprising:
an operation unit that receives an operation of instructing the energization controller to perform the energization with the first current (¶ 2 under DISCLOSURE OF THE INVENTION).
Regarding claim 8
Maeno in view of Sacolick in view of Wang teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 1,
Wang, applied to claim 8, further teaches
wherein the magnetic material is a metal (¶ 5 under BACKGROUND ART).
Regarding claim 9
Maeno discloses
An operation method of a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus that captures a magnetic resonance image of a subject (¶ 1 under BACKGROUND-ART) and
includes a high-frequency coil (¶ 5 under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS),
a gradient magnetic field generation coil, (¶ 5 under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS);
a static magnetic field generation coil that has an inductance larger than an inductance of the high-frequency coil and an inductance of the gradient magnetic field generation coil, the static magnetic field generation coil being a superconducting coil (¶ 8 under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, a superconducting coil has, by definition, and extremely high inductance higher than conventional coils, so higher than the “high-frequency” and “gradient” coil), and a
processor, the operation method comprising:
via the processor (¶ 5 under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, the controller controls the MRI machine, coils, among them the superconducting magnet),
energizing the static magnetic field generation coil (¶ 5 under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, the controller controls the MRI machine, coils, among them the superconducting magnet);
Maeno does not disclose
“measuring a voltage between current lead terminals of the static magnetic field generation coil; and
detecting a magnetic material existing in an imaging space of the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus and a magnetic material existing in a vicinity of the imaging space based on a first voltage that is a voltage measured in a state in which the static magnetic field generation coil is energized with a first current less than a rated current in a case of capturing the magnetic resonance image”.
Sacolick, however, discloses
measuring a voltage between current lead terminals of the static magnetic field generation coil ([0111]); and
Maeno in view of Sacolick do not teach
detecting a magnetic material existing in an imaging space (¶ 3 under THE MAGNETIC PERMEABILITY OF THE NANOMAGNETIC MATERIAL) of the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus and a magnetic material existing in a vicinity of the imaging space based on a first voltage that is a voltage measured in a state in which the static magnetic field generation coil is energized with a first
current less than a rated current in a case of capturing the magnetic resonance image.
Wang, however, teaches
detecting a magnetic material existing in an imaging space of the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus and a magnetic material existing in a vicinity of the imaging space based on a first voltage that is a voltage measured in a state in which the static magnetic field generation coil is energized with a first current less than a rated current in a case of capturing the magnetic resonance image (¶ 3 above ONE PREFERRED COATED STENT ASSEMBLY).
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 “voltage measurement of the B.sub.0 field” as taught by Sacolick as well as the “magnetic imaging facility” as taught by Wang in the apparatus of Maeno.
The justification for this modification would be to adjust the B.sub.0 field for inhomogeneities when imaging magnetic entities.
Claim(s) 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeno (JP-2017113410-A) in view of Sacolick et al. (US-20160131727-A1) in view of Wang (WO-2006049753-A1) in view of Mikami (CN-104756205-A)
Regarding claim 2
Maeno in view of Sacolick in view of Wang teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 1,
Although strongly implied, Maeno in view of Sacolick in view of Wang do not teach
“wherein the magnetic material detection unit determines that the magnetic material is detected, in a case in which at least one of a case in which the first voltage is equal to or larger than a threshold value or a case in which a temporal change rate of the first voltage is equal to or larger than a reference value is satisfied”.
Mikami, however, teaches
wherein the magnetic material detection unit determines that the magnetic material is detected, in a case in which at least one of a case in which the first voltage is equal to or larger than a threshold value or a case in which a temporal change rate of the first voltage is equal to or larger than a reference value is satisfied (¶ 1 under Technical Problem To Be Solved By 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 “threshold of voltage of a reference value” as taught by Mikami in the apparatus of Maeno in view of Sacolick in view of Wang.
The justification for this modification would be to keep the superconducting magnet within voltage limits that assure that it is superconducting and not “quenched”.
Regarding claim 3
Maeno in view of Sacolick in view of Wang in view of Mikami teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 2,
Mikami, applied to claim 3, further teaches
wherein the energization controller energizes the static magnetic field generation coil with the rated current in a case in which the first voltage is less than the threshold value and the temporal change rate of the first voltage is less than the
reference value (¶ 1 under Technical Problem To Be Solved By The Invention).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeno (JP-2017113410-A) in view of Sacolick et al. (US-20160131727-A1) in view of Wang (WO-2006049753-A1) in view of Edgley (WO-2020088959-A1).
Regarding claim 4
Maeno in view of Sacolick in view of Wang teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 1,
Maeno in view of Sacolick in view of Wang do not teach
wherein, in a case in which the magnetic material is detected, the magnetic material detection unit performs one or more of stopping energizing the static
magnetic field generation coil, stopping moving the subject to the imaging space, or giving a notification that the magnetic material is detected.
Edgley, however, teaches
wherein, in a case in which the magnetic material is detected, the magnetic material detection unit performs one or more of stopping energizing the static magnetic field generation coil, stopping moving the subject to the imaging space, or giving a notification that the magnetic material is detected (¶ 31 under ANOMALY DETECTION AND CORRELATION SYSTEM FOR A MAGNET SYSTEM).
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 “stopping to energize the static energy coil” as taught by Edgley in the apparatus of Maeno in view of Sacolick in view of Wang.
The justification for this modification would be to avoid voltage disturbances in the superconducting magnet.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeno (JP-2017113410-A) in view of Sacolick et al. (US-20160131727-A1) in view of Wang (WO-2006049753-A1) in view of Darrow et al. (US-20130279779-A1).
Regarding claim 5
` Maeno in view of Sacolick in view of Wang teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 1,
Maeno in view of Sacolick in view of Wang do not teach
“wherein the energization controller starts the energization with the first current before the subject is moved to the imaging space”.
Darrow, however, teaches
wherein the energization controller starts the energization with the first current before the subject is moved to the imaging space ([0028] & [0091]).
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 “energization with the first current” as taught by Darrow in the apparatus of Maeno in view of Sacolick in view of Wang.
The justification for this modification would be to make sure the superconducting magnet is within acceptable current limits before imaging is started.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeno (JP-2017113410-A) in view of Sacolick et al. (US-20160131727-A1) in view of Wang (WO-2006049753-A1) in view of Van Helvoort (EP-3363357-A1).
Regarding claim 6
Maeno in view of Sacolick in view of Wang teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 1,
Maeno in view of Sacolick in view of Wang do not teach
“further comprising:
an information output unit that outputs information indicating whether or not the magnetic material exists”.
Van Helvoort, however, teaches
an information output unit that outputs information indicating whether or not the magnetic material exists (¶ 32 under 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 “user screen notification of a magnetic material” as taught by Van Helvoort in the apparatus of Maeno in view of Sacolick.
The justification for this modification would be to alert the user if there is a magnetic material being imaged.
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