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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al (U.S. PGPub # 2024/0061060 which claims priority to and is the English translation of CN 202110477311.7).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Liu teaches:
A method, implemented by a computing device including a storage device and at least one processor, the method including:
obtaining initial signals (Fig. 2 Element 202.) and first interference signals collected (Fig. 2 Element 202.) in at least one first time window during a Magnetic Resonance (MR) scan of a target subject (Fig. 2 Element 202. Paragraph 0003.), the nuclei in the target subject being in an excited state in the at least one first time window (Paragraphs 0003 & 0024-0027 wherein states are disclosed.), the initial signals being collected by a receiving coil of a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) device (Fig. 2 Element 202.), and the first interference signals being collected by an interference signal acquisition device (Fig. 2 Element 202.);
determining second interference signals collected by the receiving coil in the at least one first time window based on the first interference signals (Fig. 2 Element 204.); and
determining imaging signals collected by the receiving coil in the at least one first time window by correcting the initial signals based on the second interference signals (Fig. 2 Element 205.).
PNG
media_image1.png
326
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 10, 11, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Schlemper et al (U.S. PGPub # 2020/0294287)
Regarding Independent claim 10, Schlemper teaches:
A coil assembly for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), comprising:
a housing forming an accommodation space configured to accommodate a target subject (Fig. 24A-24B & 25A-25B.);
a receiving coil configured to collect initial signals during an MR scan of the target subject (Fig. 24A-24B & 25A-25B. See paragraphs 0071, 0079, 0092-0093, 0097, & elsewhere throughout the document where R coils are disclosed.); and
an interference signal acquisition device configured to collect interference signals during the MR scan (Paragraphs 0069, 0071-0072, 0093, 0095, 0099-0100, & elsewhere wherein the suppression of interference necessitates the acquisition of the interference signals.), wherein the interference signals are used to correct the initial signals to determine imaging signals collected during the MR scan (Paragraphs 0069, 0071-0072, 0093, 0095, 0099-0114, & elsewhere wherein the suppression of interference is disclosed using various machine learning techniques.).
PNG
media_image2.png
462
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
480
690
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
480
654
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Schlemper teaches all elements of claim 10, upon which this claim depends.
Schlemper teaches the housing includes a first external surface facing the target subject and a second external surface opposite to the first external surface (Fig. 24A-24B & 25A-25B.), the receiving coil is arranged within the housing between the first external surface and the second external surface of the housing (Paragraphs 0069, 0071-0072, 0093, 0095, 0099-0100, & elsewhere wherein the suppression of interference necessitates the acquisition of the interference signals.), and the interference signal acquisition device is arranged outside the housing on the second external surface of the housing (Fig. 22 wherein the processing elements are external to the chamber that observes the target. Fig. 24A-24B & 25A-25B Elements 2450, 2470, & 2475. See paragraph 0442.).
Regarding claim 20, Schlemper teaches all elements of claim 10, upon which this claim depends.
Schlemper teaches the housing includes a flexible housing that is deformable to adapt to the surface of the target subject (Fig. 24A-24B & 25A-25B wherein all materials have some degree of flexibility.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12-13 & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlemper et al (U.S. PGPub # 2020/0294287).
Regarding claim 12, Schlemper teaches all elements of claim 11, upon which this claim depends.
Schlemper teaches the interference signal acquisition device includes one or more acquisition units each of which includes an acquisition coil (Paragraphs 0069, 0071-0072, 0093, 0095, 0099-0100, & elsewhere wherein the suppression of interference necessitates the acquisition of the interference signals.), a surface of the acquisition coil and a surface of each coil unit of the receiving coil forming a preset angle (Fig. 24A-24B & 25A-25B wherein when built the coils are all preset. Paragraphs 0069, 0071-0072, 0093, 0095, 0099-0100, & elsewhere wherein the suppression of interference necessitates the acquisition of the interference signals.).
PNG
media_image2.png
462
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
480
690
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
480
654
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Schlemper does not explicitly teach and a size of the acquisition coil being smaller than a size of each coil unit of the receiving coil.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have a size of the acquisition coil be smaller than a size of each coil unit of the receiving coil because this is both a change in size/proportion discussed in MPEP Section 2144.04 IV A and a routine optimization of a sensor system as discussed in MPEP Section 2144.05 II A. Wherein when the proportionality between the coils is the only difference between the prior art and the claims, this “recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device(s).” Therefore, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 13, Schlemper teaches or makes obvious all elements of claim 12, upon which this claim depends.
Schlemper teaches an axial direction of the acquisition coil is determined based on a direction of a main magnetic field that is used to scan the target subject (See paragraphs 0425, 0427-0428, 0430-0431, & 0438 wherein the placement of the coils is disclosed in regards to the best functionality of the entire device for capturing images.).
Regarding claim 18, Schlemper teaches or makes obvious all elements of claim 12, upon which this claim depends.
Schlemper teaches the interference signal acquisition device further includes one or more mounting bases configured to support the one or more acquisition coils on the second external surface of the housing (Fig. 22 wherein the processing elements are external to the chamber that observes the target. Fig. 24A-24B & 25A-25B Elements 2450, 2470, & 2475. See paragraph 0442.).
Regarding claim 19, Schlemper teaches or makes obvious all elements of claim 18, upon which this claim depends.
Schlemper teaches each of the one or more mounting bases includes a support and a mounting part (Fig. 22 wherein the processing elements are external to the chamber that observes the target. Fig. 24A-24B & 25A-25B Elements 2450, 2470, & 2475. See paragraph 0442.), the support is mechanically connected to the second external surface of the housing (Fig. 22 wherein the processing elements are external to the chamber that observes the target. Fig. 24A-24B & 25A-25B Elements 2450, 2470, & 2475. See paragraph 0442.), and the mounting part is mechanically connected to a portion of the support away from the second external surface and configured to limit a corresponding interference signal acquisition unit to maintain a preset distance from the second external surface of the housing (Fig. 22 wherein the processing elements are external to the chamber that observes the target. Fig. 24A-24B & 25A-25B Elements 2450, 2470, & 2475. See paragraph 0442.).
Claim 14 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlemper et al (U.S. PGPub # 2020/0294287) in view of Han et al (U.S. PGPub # 2020/0271736).
Regarding claim 14, Schlemper teaches or makes obvious all elements of claim 12, upon which this claim depends.
Schlemper does not explicitly teach the acquisition coil includes a toroidal inductor configured to collect interference signals along a central axis of the toroidal inductor.
Han teaches the acquisition coil includes a toroidal inductor configured to collect interference signals along a central axis of the toroidal inductor (Fig. 11, 12, & 13. See paragraphs 0101-0103 and paragraphs 0032-0033 wherein RF chokes are disclosed which are described as being toroidal coils.).
PNG
media_image5.png
290
288
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
626
426
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Han to the teachings of Schlemper such that the acquisition coil includes a toroidal inductor configured to collect interference signals along a central axis of the toroidal inductor because this allows the coil to have an RF choke to prevent an RF current but allow a DC current in the loop. See paragraph 0032.
Claims 2, 5, & 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (U.S. PGPub # 2024/0061060) in view of Schlemper et al (U.S. PGPub # 2020/0294287).
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which his claim depends.
Liu teaches the second interference signals are determined based on the first interference signals using an interference signal determination model (Fig. 2 Elements 203-204.).
PNG
media_image1.png
326
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liu does not explicitly teach the interference signal determination model including a trained machine learning mode.
Schlemper teaches the interference signal determination model including a trained machine learning mode (Paragraphs 0002, 0069, 0071-0073, 0089, 0127, 0156, & elsewhere throughout the publication.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Schlemper to the teachings of Liu such that the interference signal determination model includes a trained machine learning mode because the ““end-to-end” deep learning processing pipeline allows any improvements made in individual earlier processing stages to propagate to and be used by subsequent processing stages in the pipeline” wherein, “as a result, the quality and SNR of MR images generated by the deep learning pipeline is higher than that produced by conventional processing pipelines, which is an improvement in MRI technology.” See paragraph 0073 of Schlemper.
Regarding claim 5, Liu & Schlemper teach all elements of claim 2, upon which his claim depends.
Liu teaches the interference signal acquisition device includes a plurality of acquisition units, and the receiving coil includes a plurality of coil units (Paragraphs 0071, 0079, 0092-0093, 0097, 0100, & elsewhere throughout the publication wherein various pluralities of different coils are disclosed.).
Regarding claim 8, Liu teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which his claim depends.
Liu does not explicitly teach the target subject is accommodated in an accommodation space formed by a housing during the MR scan, the housing includes a first external surface facing the target subject and a second external surface opposite to the first external surface, the receiving coil is arranged within the housing between the first external surface and the second external surface of the housing, and the interference signal acquisition device is arranged outside the housing on the second external surface of the housing or inside the housing.
Schlemper teaches the target subject (Fig. 25A-25B Element patient in the device.) is accommodated in an accommodation space formed by a housing during the MR scan (Fig. 24A-24B & 25A-25B Elements 2560, 2565, & 2462. See paragraphs 0441-0442. See also patient in the device.), the housing includes a first external surface facing the target subject and a second external surface opposite to the first external surface (Fig. 24A-24B & 25A-25B Elements 2560, 2565, & 2462 wherein the shields have inner and outer surfaces. See paragraphs 0441-0442.), the receiving coil is arranged within the housing between the first external surface and the second external surface of the housing (Paragraphs 0071, 0079, 0092-0093, 0097, 0100, & elsewhere throughout the publication wherein the coils are necessarily inside the shielding elements listed above.), and the interference signal acquisition device is arranged outside the housing on the second external surface of the housing or inside the housing (Fig. 24A-24B & 25A-25B Elements 2450, 2470, & 2475. See paragraph 0442.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Schlemper to the teachings of Liu such that the target subject is accommodated in an accommodation space formed by a housing during the MR scan, the housing includes a first external surface facing the target subject and a second external surface opposite to the first external surface, the receiving coil is arranged within the housing between the first external surface and the second external surface of the housing, and the interference signal acquisition device is arranged outside the housing on the second external surface of the housing or inside the housing because this is how MRI systems need to function. The patient is placed inside the machine to be analyzed and the computing elements are outside the device to prevent interference both ways.
Regarding claim 9, Liu teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which his claim depends.
Liu does not explicitly teach the target subject is accommodated in a detection region of the MRI device during the MR scan, the receiving coil is arranged within the detection region, and acquisition units of the interference signal acquisition device are arranged at two ends of the detection region.
Schlemper teaches the target subject is accommodated in a detection region of the MRI device during the MR scan (Fig. 25A-25B Element patient in the device.), the receiving coil is arranged within the detection region (Paragraphs 0071, 0079, 0092-0093, 0097, 0100, & elsewhere throughout the publication wherein the coils are necessarily inside the shielding elements listed above.), and acquisition units of the interference signal acquisition device are arranged at two ends of the detection region (Fig. 24A-24B & 25A-25B Elements 2420, 2450, 2470, & 2475. See paragraphs 0441-0442.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Schlemper to the teachings of Liu such that the target subject is accommodated in a detection region of the MRI device during the MR scan, the receiving coil is arranged within the detection region, and acquisition units of the interference signal acquisition device are arranged at two ends of the detection region because this is how MRI systems need to function. The patient is placed inside the machine to be analyzed and the computing elements are outside the device to prevent interference both ways.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-7, & 15-17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art listed does not anticipate alone or combine in an obvious manner to teach the invention claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 3, Liu & Schlemper teach all elements of claim 2, upon which his claim depends.
Liu does not explicitly teach the interference signal determination model is determined by: obtaining first sample interference signals and second sample interference signals collected in at least one second time window during the MR scan, the nuclei in the target subject being in an unexcited state in the at least one second time window, the first sample interference signals being collected by the receiving coil of the MRI device, and the second sample interference signals being collected by the interference signal acquisition device; and generating the interference signal determination model by training a preliminary model using the first sample interference signals and the second sample interference signals.
Regarding claim 4, Liu & Schlemper teach all elements of claim 2, upon which his claim depends.
Liu does not explicitly teach the interference signal determination model includes a first model and a second model, the first model is configured to determine amplitude information of the second interference signals by processing amplitude information of the first interference signals, and the second model is configured to determine phase information of the second interference signals by processing phase information of the first interference signals.
Regarding claim 6,
The method of claim 5, wherein the determining second interference signals collected by the receiving coil in the at least one first time window based on the first interference signals includes: dividing a k-space matrix into a plurality of portions each of which includes one or more columns; for each of the plurality of portions, determining first K-space data in the one or more columns of the portion corresponding to the first interference signals; and determining second K-space data in the one or more columns of the portion corresponding to the second interference signals by inputting the first K-space data into the interference signal determination model; and determining the second interference signals based on the second K-space data corresponding to each of the plurality of portions.
Regarding claim 7,
The method of claim 5, wherein the interference signal determination model includes a plurality of sub-models each of which corresponds to one of the plurality of coil units, and the determining second interference signals collected by the receiving coil in the at least one first time window based on the first interference signals includes: for each of the plurality of coil units, determining a second k-space matrix corresponding to the second channel by inputting a first k-space matrix corresponding to the first interference signals to the sub-model corresponding to the second channel; and determining the second interference signals based on the second K-space matrix corresponding to each of the plurality of coil units.
Regarding claim 15, Schlemper teaches or makes obvious all elements of claim 12, upon which this claim depends.
Schlemper teaches the interference signal acquisition device further includes a detuned circuit electrically connected to the acquisition coil, the detuned circuit being configured to adjust the acquisition coil to a detuned state or a resonant state.
Regarding claim 16,
The coil assembly of claim 15, wherein the interference signal acquisition device further includes a preamplifier circuit and a wave trap unit, the preamplifier circuit being electrically connected to the detuned circuit and the wave trap unit.
Regarding claim 17,
The coil assembly of claim 15, wherein the second external surface of the housing is provided with one or more slots; each of the one or more acquisition units is provided with a buckle at a bottom of the acquisition unit, wherein the buckle corresponds to one of the one or more slots and is provided with a through hole through which a connection wire of the interference signal acquisition device is passed to connect the corresponding acquisition coil with the detuned circuit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on 571-270-5628. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights