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, 13, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feiweier1 (US-20110234221-A1) in view of Feiweier2 (DE-102010012948-A1).
Regarding claim 1
A phase correction method ([0002]) comprising:
acquiring first k-space data acquired in a first readout direction and second k-space data acquired in a second readout direction that is opposite to the first readout direction ([0004], EPI is uses opposite readout direction technique);
weighting first real space data to generate first adjusted data with a predetermined weighting ([0020]),
wherein weight coefficients in the predetermined weighting vary depending on a pixel position in a readout direction ([0085], the coefficients of pixels are
weighted based on position) and become lower in a region where a variance of a phase difference is larger than a predetermined variance, the first real space data being obtained by performing one-dimensional Fourier transform on the first k-space data ([0035] & [0104]);
Although strongly implied, Feiweier1 does not explicitly teach
“weighting second real space data to generate second adjusted data with the predetermined weighting, the second real space data being obtained by performing one-dimensional Fourier transform on the second k-space data;
calculating a correction amount for correcting a phase difference between the first adjusted data and the second adjusted data; and
correcting a phase difference between data that are different from each other in polarity of a gradient pulse in the readout direction during acquisition, by using the correction amount”.
Feiweier2, however, discloses
weighting second real space data to generate second adjusted data with the predetermined weighting, the second real space data being obtained by performing one-dimensional Fourier transform on the second k-space data (¶ 27 under Description);
calculating a correction amount for correcting a phase difference between the first adjusted data and the second adjusted data (¶ 17 under Description); and
correcting a phase difference between data that are different from each other in polarity of a gradient pulse in the readout direction during acquisition, by using the correction amount (¶ 1—5 under Description).
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 “phase difference correction based on adjusted data” as taught by Feiweier2 in the method of Feiweier1.
The justification for this modification would be to assure good tissue contrast and reduce artifacts and noise bias.
Regarding claim 13
Feiweier1 discloses
A phase correction apparatus comprising processing circuitry ([0002]) configured to:
acquire first k-space data acquired in a first readout direction and second k-space data acquired in a second readout direction that is opposite to the first readout direction ([0004], EPI is uses opposite readout direction technique);
weight first real space data to generate first adjusted data with a predetermined weighting ([0020]),
wherein weight coefficients in the predetermined weighting vary depending on a pixel position in a readout direction ([0085], the coefficients of pixels are
weighted based on position) and become lower in a region where a variance of a phase difference is larger than a predetermined variance, the first real space data being obtained by performing one-dimensional Fourier transform on the first k-space data ([0035] & [0104]);
Although strongly implied, Feiweier1 does not explicitly teach
“weight second real space data to generate second adjusted data with the predetermined weighting, the second real space data being obtained by performing one-dimensional Fourier transform on the second k-space data;
calculate a correction amount for correcting a phase difference between the first adjusted data and the second adjusted data; and
correct a phase difference between data that are different from each other in polarity of a gradient pulse in the readout direction during acquisition, by using the correction amount”.
Feiweier2, however, discloses
weight second real space data to generate second adjusted data with the predetermined weighting, the second real space data being obtained by performing one-dimensional Fourier transform on the second k-space data (¶ 27 under Description);
calculate a correction amount for correcting a phase difference between the first adjusted data and the second adjusted data (¶ 17 under Description); and
correct a phase difference between data that are different from each other in polarity of a gradient pulse in the readout direction during acquisition, by using the correction amount (¶ 1—5 under Description).
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 “phase difference correction based on adjusted data” as taught by Feiweier2 in the method of Feiweier1.
The justification for this modification would be to assure good tissue contrast and reduce artifacts and noise bias.
Regarding claim 16
Feiweier1 discloses
An MRI apparatus ([0002]—[0004]) comprising:
a static magnetic field magnet configured to generate a static magnetic field ([0065]);
a gradient coil configured to generate a gradient magnetic field ([0065]); and
processing circuitry (Fig. 1, Ref 3, [0065]) configured to
acquire first k-space data as data of MR signals by applying the gradient magnetic field in a first readout direction, acquire second k-space data as data of MR signals 10 by applying the gradient magnetic field in a second readout
direction that is opposite to the first readout direction ([0004], EPI is uses opposite readout direction technique),
weight first real space data to generate first adjusted data with a predetermined weighting ([0020]),
wherein weight coefficients in the predetermined weighting vary depending on a pixel position in a readout direction ([0085], the coefficients of pixels are
weighted based on position) and become lower in a region where a variance of a phase difference is larger than a predetermined variance, the first real space data being obtained by performing one-dimensional Fourier transform on the first k-space data ([0035] & [0104]);
Although strongly implied, Feiweier1 does not explicitly teach
“weight second real space data to generate second adjusted data with the predetermined weighting, the second real space data being obtained by performing one-dimensional Fourier transform on the second k-space data,
calculate a correction amount for correcting a phase difference between the first adjusted data and the second adjusted data; and
correct a phase difference between data that are different from each other in polarity of the gradient magnetic field in the readout direction during acquisition, by using the correction amount”.
Feiweier2, however, discloses
weight second real space data to generate second adjusted data with the predetermined weighting, the second real space data being obtained by performing one-dimensional Fourier transform on the second k-space data (¶ 27 under Description),
calculate a correction amount for correcting a phase difference between the first adjusted data and the second adjusted data (¶ 17 under Description); and
correct a phase difference between data that are different from each other in polarity of the gradient magnetic field in the readout direction during acquisition, by using the correction amount (¶ 1—5 under Description).
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 “phase difference correction based on adjusted data” as taught by Feiweier2 in the method of Feiweier1.
The justification for this modification would be to assure good tissue contrast and reduce artifacts and noise bias.
Regarding claim 18
Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2 teach the MRI apparatus according to claim 16,
Feiweier1, applied to claim 18, further teaches
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
acquire the first k-space data, the second k-space data, and MR-image data for generating an MR image during a main scan ([0004], EPI is uses opposite readout direction technique); and
Feiweier2, applied to claim 18, further teaches
generate the MR image from the MR-image data that are corrected by using the correction amount (¶ 1 under Description).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feiweier1 (US-20110234221-A1) in view of Feiweier2 (DE-102010012948-A1) in view of Hu (CN-117347931-A). Regarding claim 2
Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2 teach the phase correction method according to claim 1,
Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2 do not teach
“wherein the first k-space data and the second k-space data are one pair of data that are filled in a same k-space phase encoding line.”
Hu, however, teaches
wherein the first k-space data and the second k-space data are one pair of data that are filled in a same k-space phase encoding line (¶ 12 – 14 under Description).
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 “pairs of k space data” as taught by Hu in the method of Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2.
The justification for this modification would be to improve reconstruction efficiency.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feiweier1 (US-20110234221-A1) in view of Feiweier2 (DE-102010012948-A1) in view of Choi (US-20160349340-A1).
Regarding claim 3
Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2 teach the phase correction method according to claim 1,
Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2 do not teach
“wherein the first k-space data and the second k-space data are one pair of data that are filled in k-space phase encoding lines adjacent to each other”.
Choi, however, teaches
wherein the first k-space data and the second k-space data are one pair of data that are filled in k-space phase encoding lines adjacent to each other ([0211]—
[0212]).
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 “phase encoding lines
adjacent to each other” as taught by Choi in the method of Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2.
The justification for this modification would be to use an MRI technique that is particularly good for acquiring angiographic signals (i.e., imaging of blood flow to see if there are any abnormalities).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feiweier1 (US-20110234221-A1) in view of Feiweier2 (DE-102010012948-A1) in view of Umeda (JP-2010142411-A).
Regarding claim 4
Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2 teach the phase correction method according to claim 1,
Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2 do not teach
“wherein the first k-space data and the second k-space data are data acquired during a pre-scan of MRI”.
Umeda, however
wherein the first k-space data and the second k-space data are data acquired during a pre-scan of MRI (¶ 33 above “Claims” there is a database of k-space so first and second k-space data).
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 “k-space acquired during a prescan” as taught by Udema in the method of Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2.
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 k space and main scan technique” as taught by Umeda in the apparatus of Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2.
The justification for this modification would be to obtain correction data from the pre-scan and use this data to improve the main scan.
Regarding claim 5
Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2 teach the phase correction method according to claim 1,
Although strongly implied, Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2 do not explicitly
teach
“wherein the first k-space data and the second k-space data are data acquired during a main scan of MRI”.
Udema, however, discloses
wherein the first k-space data and the second k-space data are data acquired during a main scan of MRI (¶ 4 under BACKGROUND-ART).
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 “k-space data acquired during a main scan” as taught by Udema in the method of Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2.
The justification for this modification would be to acquire information during a main scan to construct the MRI image with.
Regarding claim 17
Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2 teach the MRI apparatus according to claim 16,
Feiweier2, applied to claim 17, further teaches
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
generate the MR image from the MR-image data that are corrected by using the correction amount (¶ 1 – 5 under Description).
Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2 do not teach
“acquire the first k-space data and the second k-space data during a pre-scan;
acquire MR-image data for generating an MR image during a main scan.”
Umeda, however, teaches
acquire the first k-space data and the second k-space data during a pre-scan (¶ 14 & 15 above “Claims”);
acquire MR-image data for generating an MR image during a main scan (¶ 4 under BACKGROUND-ART).
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 k space and main scan technique” as taught by Umeda in the apparatus of Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2.
The justification for this modification would be to obtain correction data from the pre-scan and use this data to improve the main scan.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feiweier1 (US-20110234221-A1) in view of Feiweier2 (DE-102010012948-A1) in view of Zhou (CN-106338703-A).
Regarding claim 7
Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2 teach the phase correction method according to claim 1,
Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2 do not teach
“wherein the predetermined weighting gives a higher weight coefficient to a central region in the readout direction than to an outer region outside the central region”.
Zhou, however, teaches
wherein the predetermined weighting gives a higher weight coefficient to a central region in the readout direction than to an outer region outside the central region (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 “central k-space region more heavily weighted than the periphery” as taught by Zhou in the method of Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2.
The justification for this modification would be to create an MRI image that has good contrast and brightness, which is what the center of k-space offers.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feiweier1 (US-20110234221-A1) in view of Feiweier2 (DE-102010012948-A1) in view of Chouno (CN-110383051-A).
Regarding claim 8
Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2 teach the phase correction method according to claim 1,
Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2 do not teach
“wherein the predetermined weighting converts a pixel value in a region outside an FOV (Field Of View) into a predetermined value”.
Chouno, however, teaches
“wherein the predetermined weighting converts a pixel value in a region outside an FOV (Field Of View) into a predetermined value (¶ 6 under (1-1. Structure 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 “pixel value outside of the FOV” as taught by Chouno in the method of Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2.
The justification for this modification would be to keep the SNR high and achieve good image fidelity.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feiweier1 (US-20110234221-A1) in view of Feiweier2 (DE-102010012948-A1) in view of Forman (GB-2586600-A).
Regarding claim 10
Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2 teach the phase correction method according to claim 1,
Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2 do not teach
“wherein the predetermined weighting gives a higher weight coefficient to a region of interest than to a region of non-interest”.
Foreman, however, teaches
wherein the predetermined weighting gives a higher weight coefficient to a region of interest than to a region of non-interest (¶ 3 under SUMMARY OF 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 “higher weighting in a
region of interest as a region of lesser interest” as taught by Forman in the method of Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2.
The justification for this modification would be to improve tracking of the target object for better imaging.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feiweier1 (US-20110234221-A1) in view of Feiweier2 (DE-102010012948-A1) in view of Forman (GB-2586600-A) in view Tanaka et al. (US-20200359980-A1).
Regarding claim 11
Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2 in view of Forman teach the phase correction method according to claim 10,
Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2 in view of Forman do not teach
“further comprising acquiring information on a region of interest designated by a user,
wherein the predetermined weighting is set based on information on the region of interest”.
Tanaka, however, teaches
further comprising acquiring information on a region of interest designated by a user,
wherein the predetermined weighting is set based on information on the region of interest ([0054]).
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 “weighting based on region of interest” as taught by Tanaka in the method of Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2.
The justification for this modification would be to produce images of predetermined areas with a small standard deviation.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feiweier1 (US-20110234221-A1) in view of Feiweier2 (DE-102010012948-A1) in view of Chen (CN-104252570-A).
Regarding claim 15
Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2 teach the phase correction method according to claim 13,
Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2 do not teach
“further comprising a memory configured to store at least one of:
one or plural arithmetic expressions; and
a data table, for generating a plurality of types of weighting”.
Chen, however, teaches
further comprising a memory configured to store at least one of:
one or plural arithmetic expressions; and
a data table, for generating a plurality of types of weighting ([0014]—[0022]).
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 “data weighting” as taught by Chen in the method of Feiweier1 in view of Feiweier2.
The justification for this modification would be to improve the quality of the medical image.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, 12, 14, 19 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 6
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“a plurality of correction amounts are calculated for correcting phase differences between the plurality of first adjusted data and the plurality of second adjusted data; and
phase differences between data that are different from each other in polarity of the gradient pulse in the readout direction during acquisition are corrected by using the plurality of correction amount”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 9
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein the predetermined weighting is based on a Hamming window function in which center positions in the readout direction for acquiring the first k-space data and the second k-space data constitute a line-symmetric axis”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 12
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“wherein the predetermined weighting minimizes a sum of phase differences between data that are different in polarity of the gradient pulse in the readout direction during acquisition among the plurality of types of weighting”.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 14
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
calculate a plurality of correction amounts for correcting phase differences between the plurality of first adjusted data and the plurality of second adjusted data; and
performs correction by using the plurality of correction amounts in such a manner that a sum of phase differences between data that are different from each other in polarity of the gradient pulse in the readout direction during acquisition is minimized.
In conjunction with the rest of the claim language.
Regarding claim 19
Nothing in the prior art of record teaches or discloses
“calculate a plurality of correction amounts for correcting phase differences between the plurality of first adjusted data and the plurality of second adjusted data; and
performs correction in such a manner that a sum of phase differences between data that are different from each other in polarity of the gradient magnetic
field in the readout direction during acquisition is minimized by using the plurality of correction amounts”.
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
Prosecution Insights