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, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll (WO-0037957-A1) in view of Yatsui et al. (US-20040056660-A1).
Regarding claim 1
Carroll discloses
A method of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of an object placed in an examination volume of an MR system (¶ 1 under Brief Description of the Drawings)
the method comprising
subjecting the object to an imaging sequence comprising a series of RF excitations ((¶ or line 32 under Brief Description Of The Drawings), wherein an echo signal is generated in the presence of a readout magnetic
field gradient in each repetition time interval between successive RF excitations (¶ or line 37 under Brief Description Of The Drawings),
wherein phase-encoding magnetic field gradients (P, S) are switched in each repetition time interval to sample a pre-defined region of k-space (¶ 7 above “Claims”);
acquiring the echo signals from the object as partial echoes (¶ or line 37 under Brief Description Of The Drawings)
Carroll does not disclose
“Gradients with different readout polarities, each echo signal being associated with either a first direction of the readout magnetic field gradient or a second direction of the readout magnetic field gradient which is opposite to the first direction, wherein the echo signals associated with the first and/or the second direction sample k-space sparsely in at least one phase-encoding direction (P, S); and
reconstructing an MR image from the acquired echo signals”.
Yastui, however, teaches
Gradients with different readout polarities, each echo signal being associated with either a first direction of the readout magnetic field gradient or a second direction of the readout magnetic field gradient which is opposite to the first direction ([0012]—[0013] & [0055]),
wherein the echo signals associated with the first and/or the second direction sample k-space sparsely in at least one phase-encoding direction (P, S) ([0013] & [0084]); and
-reconstructing an MR image from the acquired echo signals ([0043]).
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 “polarized gradients of different readout directions” as taught by Yatusi in the method of Carroll.
The justification for this modification would be to avoid phase rotation component that is different for the echoes ([0019].
Regarding claim 14
Carroll in view of Yatsui teach MR system is configured to perform the steps of the method of claim 1.
Carroll, applied to claim 14, further teaches
A magnetic resonance (MR) system comprising at least one main magnet coil for generating a uniform, static magnetic field B₀ within an examination volume (¶ 5 under Description), a number of gradient coils for generating
configured to generate switched magnetic field gradients in different spatial directions within the examination volume (¶ 6 under Description),
at least one RF coil for generating configured to generate RF
pulses within the examination volume and/or for receiving configured to receive MR signals from an object positioned in the examination volume (¶ 5 under Description, the Larmor frequency is the frequency the RF coils send out),
a control unit for controlling configured to control the temporal succession of RF pulses and switched magnetic field gradients (¶ 31 under Brief Description Of The Drawings), and
a reconstruction unit for reconstructing configured to reconstruct MR images from the received MR signals (¶ 3 under Brief Description Of The Drawings).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll (WO-0037957-A1) in view of Yatsui et al. (US-20040056660-A1) in view of Song (WO-0235250-A1).
Regarding claim 2
Carroll in view of Yatsui teach the method of claim 1,
Carroll in view of Yatsui do not teach
“wherein the echo signals associated with the first direction sample a sub-region of k-space that is not sampled by the echo signals associated with the second direction, and vice versa”.
Song, however, teaches
wherein the echo signals associated with the first direction sample a sub-region of k-space that is not sampled by the echo signals associated with the second direction, and vice versa (¶ 6—7 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 “partial region of k-space sampled” as taught by Song in the method of Carroll in view of Yatsui.
The justification for this modification would be to achieve universal spatial coverage over inhomogeneous areas.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll (WO-0037957-A1) in view of Yatsui et al. (US-20040056660-A1) in view of Fuderer (EP-3540453-A1).
Regarding claim 3
Carroll in view of Yatsui teach the method of claim 1,
Carroll in view of Yatsui do no teach
“wherein the k-space regions sampled by the echo signals associated with the first and second directions, respectively, overlap in a central part of k-space”.
Fuderer, however, teaches
wherein the k-space regions sampled by the echo signals associated with the first and second directions, respectively, overlap in a central part of k-space (¶ 3 under SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION).
wherein the k-space regions sampled by the echo signals associated with the first and second directions, respectively, overlap in a central part of k-space (¶ 9 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 “overlap in central k-space” as taught by Fuderer in the method of Carroll in view of Yatsui.
The justification for this modification would be to compensate for strong magnetic field inhomogeneities (¶ 7 under BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION).
Regarding claim 5
Carroll in view of Yatsui teach the method of claim 1,
Carroll in view of Yatsui do not teach
“wherein the echo signals associated with the first and second directions, taken in combination, sample k-space fully in a central part of k-space”.
Fuderer, however, teaches
wherein the echo signals associated with the first and second directions, taken in combination, sample k-space fully in a central part of k-space (¶ 3 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 “sample space of k-space in different directions” as taught by Fuderer in the method of Carroll in view of Yatsui.
The justification for this modification would be to ensure that, given a certain amount of inhomogeneity from B.sub.0 field, that, during spiral sampling, central k-space gets completely filled.
Regarding claim 7
Carroll in view of Yatsui teach the method of any claim 1,
Carroll in view of Yatsui do not teach
“further comprising the step of mapping the main magnetic field inhomogeneity,
wherein the main magnetic field inhomogeneity is taken into account in the step of reconstructing the MR image”.
Fuderer, however, teaches
further comprising the step of mapping the main magnetic field inhomogeneity (¶ 6 under BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION),
wherein the main magnetic field inhomogeneity is taken into account in the step of reconstructing the MR image ((¶ 5 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 “B.sub.0 field mapping” as taught by Fuderer in the method of Carroll in view of Yatsui.
The justification for this modification would be to minimize artifacts and geometric distortion in the final image.
Regarding claim 8
Carroll in view of Yatsui teach the method of any claim 1,
Carroll in view of Yatsui do not teach
“further comprising the step of mapping a spatially or spatiotemporally varying phase difference between the echo signals associated with the first and the second direction, respectively, in image space, wherein the phase difference is taken into account in the step of reconstructing the MR image”.
Fuderer, however, teaches
further comprising the step of mapping a spatially or spatiotemporally varying phase difference between the echo signals associated with the first and the second direction, respectively, in image space, wherein the phase difference is taken into account in the step of reconstructing the MR image (¶ 9 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 “taking into account the
phase different during image reconstruction” as taught by Fuderer in the method of Carroll in view of Yatsui.
The justification for this modification would be to improve image quality and diagnostic reliability.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll (WO-0037957-A1) in view of Yatsui et al. (US-20040056660-A1) in view of Ordidge (CN-1643392-A).
Regarding claim 4
Carroll in view of Yatsui teach the method of claim 1,
Carroll in view of Yatsui do not teach
“wherein the echo signals associated with the first and second directions, respectively, sample k-space in an interleaved pattern in the at least one phase-encoding direction”.
Ordidge, however, teaches
wherein the echo signals associated with the first and second directions, respectively, sample k-space in an interleaved pattern in the at least one phase-encoding direction (¶ or line 35—40 under INVENTION-TITLE).
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 “interleaved pattern in phase encoding direction” as taught by Ordidge in the method of Carroll in view of Yatsui.
The justification for this modification would be to speed up imaging.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll (WO-0037957-A1) in view of Yatsui et al. (US-20040056660-A1) in view of Wu (CN-111352054-A).
Regarding claim 6
Carroll in view of Yatsui teach the method of claim 1,
Carroll in view of Yatsui do not teach
“wherein the reconstructing of the MR image from the acquired MR signals relies on sensitivity encoding, compressed sensing, or combinations thereof, instead of on the assumption of smooth phase variation across the MR image”. Wu, however, teaches
wherein the reconstructing of the MR image from the acquired MR signals relies on sensitivity encoding, compressed sensing, or combinations thereof, instead of on the assumption of smooth phase variation across the MR image (¶ 19 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 “compressed sensing” as taught by Wu in the method of Carroll in view of Yatsui.
The justification for this modification would be to reduce scan while also maintaining image quality.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll (WO-0037957-A1) in view of Yatsui et al. (US-20040056660-A1) in view of Dougherty (US-20090105582-A1).
Regarding claim 9
Carroll in view of Yatsui teach the method of any claim 1,
Carroll in view of Yatsui do not teach
“wherein a spoiler magnetic field gradient in the readout direction, applied after acquiring the echo signals, is adapted such that the integral area of the readout
magnetic field gradient is the same for each repetition time interval for both the first and the second direction.”
Dougherty, however, teaches
wherein a spoiler magnetic field gradient in the readout direction, applied after acquiring the echo signals, is adapted such that the integral area of the readout
magnetic field gradient is the same for each repetition time interval for both the first and the second direction ([0051]).
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 “spoiler magnetic field gradient” as taught by Daughterty in the method of Carroll in view of Yatsui.
The justification for this modification would be to remove unwanted transverse coherence.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll (WO-0037957-A1) in view of Yatsui et al. (US-20040056660-A1) in view of Luo (CN-107153169-A)
Regarding claim 10
Carroll in view of Yatsui teach the method of any claim 1,
Carroll in view of Yatsui do not teach
“wherein the echo signals are acquired at an echo time at which the signal contributions from water and from fat are approximately in quadrature, wherein the contributions from water and fat are separated in the step of reconstructing the MR image”.
Luo, however, teaches
wherein the echo signals are acquired at an echo time at which the signal contributions from water and from fat are approximately in quadrature (¶ 3 under Specific Implementation Methods),
wherein the contributions from water and fat are separated in the step of reconstructing the MR image (¶ 2 under BACKGROUND).
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 “water and fat in quadrature signals” as taught by Luo in the method of Carroll in view of Yatsui.
The justification for this modification would be to realize rapid fat-water separation imaging (¶ 1 under Background).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll (WO-0037957-A1) in view of Yatsui et al. (US-20040056660-A1) in view of Dewert (CN-109716155-A).
Regarding claim 11
Carroll in view of Yatsui teach the method of any claim 1,
Carroll in view of Yatsui do not teach
“wherein the echo signals are acquired at different echo times, each echo signal being associated with either a first echo time or a second echo time so that a chemical shift encoding is applied to the acquired echo signal, wherein contributions from water and fat are separated in the step of reconstructing the MR image”.
Dewert, however, teaches
wherein the echo signals are acquired at different echo times, each echo signal being associated with either a first echo time or a second echo time so that a chemical shift encoding is applied to the acquired echo signal, wherein
contributions from water and fat are separated in the step of reconstructing the MR image ( ¶ 5 under Background Technology).
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 “different echo times with chemical shift encoding” as taught by Dewert in the method of Carroll in view of Yatsui.
The justification for this modification would be to improve the Dickson water-fat separation technique.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll (WO-0037957-A1) in view of Yatsui et al. (US-20040056660-A1) in view of Yeh (US-20200380740-A1).
Regarding claim 15
Carroll in view of Yatsui teach the computer to carry out the method of claim 1.
Although strongly implied, Carroll in view of Yatsui do not teach
“A computer program comprising instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium which, when the program is executed by a computer,
preferably by a control unit and/or a reconstruction unit of a magnetic resonance (MR) system”.
Yeh, however, teaches
A computer program comprising instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium which, when the program is executed by a computer,
preferably by a control unit and/or a reconstruction unit of a magnetic resonance (MR) system ([0011]).
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 “computer program with non-transitory readable medium” as taught by Yeh in the method of Carroll in view of Yatsui.
The justification for this modification would be to have a computer to drive the MRI machine and a way of permanently storing the MRI program in case of accidental power-down.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 13 & 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 12
Nothing in the art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein the strength of the readout magnetic field gradient applied during acquisition of the echo signals associated with the shorter echo time is smaller than
the strength of the readout magnetic field gradient applied during acquisition of the echo signals associated with the longer echo time”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 13
Nothing in the art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein contributions from water and fat are separated in the step of reconstructing the MR image, and
wherein the area of the spoiler readout magnetic field gradient associated with the shorter echo time is larger than the spoiler readout magnetic field gradient's area associated with the longer echo
time”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 16
Nothing in the art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein the area of the spoiler readout magnetic field gradient associated with the shorter echo time is larger than the spoiler readout magnetic field gradient's area associated with the longer echo time”.
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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/Frederick Wenderoth/
Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights