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 § 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.
Regarding claim 14
The claim is 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 § 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.
Applicant cites “strength of gradient” without further definition. There are many gradients: Gx, Gy, Gz and gradient “spoiler pulses”. It would be helpful if Applicant could further define which of these gradients—maybe all—that are being adapted, i.e., changed in slew rate, amplitude, etc. In this Office Action Examiner will assume “broadest possible interpretation”—any of these gradients or all may be modified.
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, 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heid (CN-101114013-B) in view of Rossler (DE-102018213729-A1) in view of Grodzki (DE-102012219016-B3).
Regarding claim 1
Heid discloses
A method for adapting a magnetic resonance sequence for examining an object under examination by a magnetic resonance apparatus ([0001] & [0071]—[0073]), the method comprising:
providing a magnetic resonance sequence ([0001]—[0004]) having at least one gradient pulse ([0002]);
adapting a gradient strength of the at least one gradient pulse of the magnetic
resonance sequence in an adaptation segment based on the at least one item of examination information ([0042], [0073]—[0074], slew rate and amplitude are changed based on limited high dose of RF power using segments of the gradient ([0074]—[0076] & [0139]),
Although strongly implied, Heid does not implicitly disclose
“Providing at least one item of examination information,”
And
“wherein the adapting comprises reducing the gradient strength of the at least one gradient pulse in the adaptation segment such that the gradient strength
before and after the adaptation segment is higher, at least in segments, than within the adaptation segment.”
Rossler, however, disclose
Providing at least one item of examination information (ABSTRACT, ¶ 1 & ¶ 10 under Description).
Heid in view of Rossler do not teach
“wherein the adapting comprises reducing the gradient strength of the at least one gradient pulse in the adaptation segment such that the gradient strength before and after the adaptation segment is higher, at least in segments, than within the adaptation segment.”
Grodzki, however, discloses
wherein the adapting comprises reducing the gradient strength of the at least one gradient pulse in the adaptation segment such that the gradient strength before and after the adaptation segment is higher, at least in segments, than within the adaptation segment (FIG. 4, ¶ 20 under Description, the pulse amplitude is adapted, with the middle being lower in amplitude than the beginning and the end).
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 “gradient pulse with adapted segments” as taught by Grodzki in the method of Heid in view of Rossler.
The justification for this modification would be to keep SAR exposure low.
Regarding claim 2
Heid in view of Rossler in view of Grodzki teach the method of claim 1,
further comprising:
Grodzki, applied to claim 2, further teaches
carrying out a magnetic resonance examination based on the adapted magnetic resonance sequence (¶ 19 under Description, the gradient is adapted, and then used in the imaging process).
Regarding claim 3
Heid in view of Rossler in view of Grodzki teach the method of claim 2,
Grodzki, applied to claim 3, further teaches
wherein the magnetic resonance examination comprises a magnetic resonance measurement (¶ 3 under Description).
Regarding claim 4
Heid in view of Rossler in view of Grodzki teach the method of claim 1,
Grodzki, applied to claim 4, further teaches
wherein the adapting of the gradient strength of the at least one gradient pulse of the magnetic resonance sequence comprises:
determining a maximum gradient strength reduction factor and/or a minimum gradient strength based on the at least one item of examination information (¶ 26 under Description); and
adapting the gradient strength in the adaptation segment based on the maximum gradient strength reduction factor and/or the minimum gradient strength (¶ 26 under Description).
Regarding claim 11
Heid in view of Rossler in view of Grodzki teach the method of claim 1,
Grodzki, applied to claim 11, further teaches
wherein the magnetic resonance sequence provides that at least one radiofrequency pulse (¶ 1—3, Description) is applied during the at least one gradient pulse (¶ 1—3, Description).
Regarding claim 13
Heid discloses
A magnetic resonance apparatus ([0002]—[0003]) comprising:
a system control unit comprising a processor ([0012]) configured to:
provide a magnetic resonance sequence having at least one gradient
pulse ([0002]—[0003]);
Although strongly implied, Heid does not explicitly disclose
“provide at least one item of examination information; and
adapt a gradient strength of the at least one gradient pulse of the magnetic resonance sequence in an adaptation segment based on the at least one item of examination information,
wherein the adaptation comprises reducing the gradient strength of
the at least one gradient pulse in the adaptation segment such that the gradient strength before and after the adaptation segment is higher, at least in segments, than within the adaptation segment”.
Rossler, however, discloses
provide at least one item of examination information (¶ 20 under Description); and
adapt a gradient strength of the at least one gradient pulse of the magnetic resonance sequence in an adaptation segment based on the at least one item of examination information (¶ 20—22 under Description),
Heid in view of Rossler do not explicitly teach
“wherein the adaptation comprises reducing the gradient strength of
the at least one gradient pulse in the adaptation segment such that the gradient strength before and after the adaptation segment is higher, at least in segments, than within the adaptation segment,”
Grodzki, however, teaches
wherein the adaptation comprises reducing the gradient strength of
the at least one gradient pulse in the adaptation segment such that the gradient strength before and after the adaptation segment is higher, at least in segments, than within the adaptation segment (FIG. 4, ¶ 20 under Description, the
pulse amplitude is adapted, with the middle being lower in amplitude than the beginning and the end).
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 “gradient pulse with adapted segments” as taught by Grodzki in the method of Heid in view of Ross.
The justification for this modification would be to keep SAR exposure low.
Claim(s) 5 – 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heid (CN-101114013-B) in view of Rossler (DE-102018213729-A1) in view of Grodzki (DE-102012219016-B3) in view of Simonetti (EP-2646843-B1).
Regarding claim 5
Heid in view of Rossler in view of Grodzki teach the method of claim 1,
Heid in view of Rossler in view of Grodzki do not teach
“wherein the at least one item of examination information comprises information about a B0 magnetic field distribution in a region to be measured”.
Simonetti, however, teaches
wherein the at least one item of examination information comprises information about a B0 magnetic field distribution in a region to be measured (¶ 2 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 “information about B0
field” as taught by Simonetti in the method of Heid in view of Rossler in view of Grodzki.
The justification for this modification would be to calibrate the MRI machine before imaging.
Regarding claim 6
Heid in view of Rossler in view of Grodzki teach the method of claim 1,
Heid in view of Rossler in view of Grodzki do not teach
“wherein the at least one item of examination information comprises information about the examination of the object under examination”.
Simonetti, however, discloses
wherein the at least one item of examination information comprises information about the examination of the object under examination (¶ 12 under Summary Of Invention, information about the patient is position of organs, SAR, etc).
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 “information about object under examination” as taught by Simonetti in the method of Heid in view of Rossler in view of Grodzki
The justification for this modification would be to do a “multi purpose calibration” that accelerates work flow and the speed of image acquisition.
Regarding claim 7
Heid in view of Rossler in view of Grodzki in view of Simonetti teach the method of claim 6,
Simonetti, applied to claim 7, further teaches
wherein the information comprises information about a region to be examined of the object under examination (¶ 5 under Background Of The Invention).
Regarding claim 8
Heid in view of Rossler in view of Grodzki teach the method of claim 1,
Heid in view of Rossler in view of Grodzki do not teach
“wherein the at least one item of examination information comprises information about the object under examination”.
Simonetti, however, teaches
wherein the at least one item of examination information comprises information about the object under examination (¶ 12 under Summary Of Invention, information about the patient is position of organs, SAR, etc).
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 “information about
object under examination” as taught by Simonetti in the method of Heid in view of Rossler in view of Grodzki.
The justification for this modification would be to do a “multi purpose calibration” that accelerates work flow and the speed of image acquisition.
Regarding claim 10
Heid in view of Rossler in view of Grodzki teach the method of claim 1,
Heid in view of Rossler in view of Grodzki do not explicitly teach
“wherein the at least one item of examination
information comprises information about a B0 homogeneity of the magnetic resonance apparatus, a coil configuration to be used for the examination, or a combination thereof”.
Simonetti, however, discloses
wherein the at least one item of examination
information comprises information about a B0 homogeneity of the magnetic resonance apparatus, a coil configuration to be used for the examination, or a combination thereof (¶ 5 Background 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 “information about B0
homogeneity” as taught by Simonetti in the method of Heid in view of Rossler in view of Grodzki.
The justification for this modification would be to collect data to help them shim the B.sub.0 field for inhomogeneities.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heid (CN-101114013-B) in view of Rossler (DE-102018213729-A1) in view of Grodzki (DE-102012219016-B3) in view of Simonetti (EP-2646843-B1) in view of Liu (CN-112450912-A).
Regarding claim 9
Heid in view of Rossler in view of Grodzki in view of Simonetti teach the method of claim 8,
Heid in view of Rossler in view of Grodzki in view of Simonetti do not
teach
“wherein the information comprising a height of the object under examination, an existence of implants in the object under examination, or a combination thereof”.
Liu , however, discloses
wherein the information comprising a height of the object under examination, an existence of implants in the object under examination, or a combination thereof (¶ 2 under Specific Implementation Examples).
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 “implant” as taught by
Liu in the method of Heid in view of Rossler in view of Grodzki in view of Simonetti.
The justification for this modification would be to avoid problems with MRI imaging if the implant is metal.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heid (CN-101114013-B) in view of Grodzki (DE-102012219016-B3) in view of
Du (WO-2017196878-A1).
Regarding claim 12
Heid in view of Grodzki teach the method of claim 1,
Heid in view of Grodzki do not teach
“wherein the magnetic resonance sequence is a Variable-Rate Selective Excitation (VERSE) sequence”.
Du, however, discloses
wherein the magnetic resonance sequence is a Variable-Rate Selective Excitation (VERSE) sequence ([00173]).
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 (VERSE) as taught by Dy in the method of Heid in view of Grodzki.
The justification for this modification would be to use an imaging sequence that has a low SAR (Specific Absorption Rate).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (WO-2017196878-A1) in view of Heid (CN-101114013-B) in view of Grodzki (DE-102012219016-B3).
Regarding claim 14
Du discloses
A computer program product ([00301]), which comprises a program and may be loaded directly into a memory of a programmable system control unit of a magnetic resonance apparatus ([00301]), wherein the program, when executed in the system control unit of the magnetic resonance apparatus ([0002]—[0003]), is configured to:
provide a magnetic resonance sequence having at least one gradient pulse ([0007] & [0023]);
Du does not disclose
“provide at least one item of examination information; and
adapt a gradient strength of the at least one gradient pulse of the magnetic
resonance sequence in an adaptation segment based on the at least one item of
examination information,
wherein the adaptation comprises reducing the gradient strength of the at least one gradient pulse in the adaptation segment such that the gradient strength
before and after the adaptation segment is higher, at least in segments, than within the adaptation segment”.
Rossler, however, discloses
provide at least one item of examination information (¶ 20 under Description); and
adapt a gradient strength of the at least one gradient pulse of the magnetic
resonance sequence in an adaptation segment based on the at least one item of
examination information (¶ 20 & 21 under Description),
Du in view of Rossler do not teach
“wherein the adaptation comprises reducing the gradient strength of the at least one gradient pulse in the adaptation segment such that the gradient strength before and after the adaptation segment is higher, at least in segments, than within the adaptation segment,”
Grodzki, however, discloses
wherein the adaptation comprises reducing the gradient strength of the at least one gradient pulse in the adaptation segment such that the gradient strength before and after the adaptation segment is higher, at least in segments, than within the adaptation segment (FIG. 4, ¶ 20 under Description, the pulse amplitude is adapted, with the middle being lower in amplitude than the beginning and the end).
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 “item of examination information” as taught by Rossler as well as the “gradient pulse with adapted segments” as taught by Grodzki in the computer program product of Du.
The justification for this modification would be (1) to keep SAR exposure low, and to do this in an MRI machine that was equipped with a computer product to automatically drive the machine and store the program in a non-transitory fashion in the case of accidental machine power-down.
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