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 Objections
Claims 1-6, 13, 15, 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the sensitive region” should be “the implant-related sensitive region”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “an implant-related sensitive region” should be “the implant-related sensitive region”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Regarding claim 9, the claim discloses “the relationship” and depends from claim 7. However, claim 8 discloses “a relationship”. Therefore, it is unclear if this claim should depend from claim 7 or claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US 2021/0041514).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a scanning method based on a magnetic resonance system, comprising:
for at least one scanning parameter, acquiring a numerical distribution map determined on the basis of the magnetic resonance system [¶0049, the scan parameter corresponding to each point relative to the scan center position is determined. See also rest of reference.];
determining an implant-related sensitive region of a subject to be scanned [¶0049, information of the implant device includes the location information of the implant device relative to the scan center of the magnetic resonance imaging system (step 251). See also rest of reference.];
determining, from the numerical distribution map, a first numerical value corresponding to the sensitive region [See ¶0049. See also rest of reference.];
acquiring a limit value of the at least one scanning parameter limited by an implant of the subject [See preset thresholds. See also rest of reference.];
adjusting the limit value of the at least one scanning parameter on the basis of the first numerical value [¶0049, see relatively safe scan parameters. The relatively safe scan parameters include values that are much less than the preset threshold. Therefore, the preset threshold is essentially lowered. See “For example, the radio frequency magnetic field intensity is set to 10 μT in a normal scan in the absence of an implant device. When the rated scan parameters corresponding to the implant device cannot be determined, a relatively safe radio frequency magnetic field intensity, e.g., 7 μT, can be obtained first, and the imaging scan is performed using the relatively safe scan parameter. Similarly, if a rated scan parameter corresponding to the implant device is determined (e.g., the rated radio frequency magnetic field intensity is 8 μT) from the website according to the manufacturer or model of the implant device, the imaging scan can be performed using the rated scan parameter.” See also rest of reference.]; and
scanning the subject by using the adjusted limit value of the at least one scanning parameter [See Fig. 2, step 280. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 2, Yang further teaches further comprising: acquiring a body model of the subject [See Figs. 3-4. See also rest of reference.]; and on the basis of positioning information of the subject in the magnetic resonance system, determining position information of the body model relative to the magnetic resonance system [See Fig. 2, step 251. See also rest of reference.]; wherein determining an implant-related sensitive region of a subject to be scanned comprises: determining the sensitive region from the body model [See Fig. 2, step 251. See also Figs. 3-4. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Yang further teaches wherein determining an implant-related sensitive region of a subject to be scanned comprises: determining, from a plurality of predefined human body regions, a human body region having the most stringent limit value for the at least one scanning parameter [See Fig. 2, steps 251-270. See also rest of reference.]; and determining, from the body model, a region corresponding to the human body region having the most stringent limit value as the sensitive region [See Fig. 2, steps 251-270. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 4, Yang further teaches wherein the sensitive region comprises: a region where an implant of the subject is located [See Fig. 2, step 251. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 6, Yang further teaches wherein determining the sensitive region from the body model comprises: adding an implant identifier to the body model on the basis of implant information of the subject [¶0021. See also rest of reference.]; and determining, on the basis of the added implant identifier, the region where an implant of the subject is located [¶0021. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 8, Yang further teaches further comprising: determining, from the numerical distribution map, a second numerical value corresponding to a scan center [¶0049 and Fig. 2, steps 251-270. See also rest of reference.]; wherein adjusting the limit value of the at least one scanning parameter on the basis of the first numerical value comprises: adjusting the limit value of the at least one scanning parameter on the basis of a relationship between the first numerical value and the second numerical value [¶0049 and Fig. 2, steps 251-270, wherein step 251 is performed before step 270, so step 270 is performed on the basis of 251.¶0049, see relatively safe scan parameters. The relatively safe scan parameters include values that are much less than the preset threshold. Therefore, the preset threshold is essentially lowered. See “For example, the radio frequency magnetic field intensity is set to 10 μT in a normal scan in the absence of an implant device. When the rated scan parameters corresponding to the implant device cannot be determined, a relatively safe radio frequency magnetic field intensity, e.g., 7 μT, can be obtained first, and the imaging scan is performed using the relatively safe scan parameter. Similarly, if a rated scan parameter corresponding to the implant device is determined (e.g., the rated radio frequency magnetic field intensity is 8 μT) from the website according to the manufacturer or model of the implant device, the imaging scan can be performed using the rated scan parameter.” See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 9, Yang further teaches wherein the relationship is a proportional relationship between the first numerical value and the second numerical value [¶0049 and Fig. 2, steps 251-270, wherein step 251 is performed before step 270, so step 270 is performed on the basis of 251.¶0049, see relatively safe scan parameters. The relatively safe scan parameters include values that are much less than the preset threshold. Therefore, the preset threshold is essentially lowered. See “For example, the radio frequency magnetic field intensity is set to 10 μT in a normal scan in the absence of an implant device. When the rated scan parameters corresponding to the implant device cannot be determined, a relatively safe radio frequency magnetic field intensity, e.g., 7 μT, can be obtained first, and the imaging scan is performed using the relatively safe scan parameter. Similarly, if a rated scan parameter corresponding to the implant device is determined (e.g., the rated radio frequency magnetic field intensity is 8 μT) from the website according to the manufacturer or model of the implant device, the imaging scan can be performed using the rated scan parameter.” See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 11, Yang further teaches further comprising: on the basis of predetermined positioning information of the subject in the magnetic resonance system, acquiring a position correspondence between the body model and the numerical distribution map [See Figs. 2-4 and corresponding descriptions. See also rest of reference.]; wherein the first numerical value is determined on the basis of the position correspondence [See Figs. 2-4 and corresponding descriptions. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 12, Yang further teaches wherein the at least one scanning parameter comprises a radio-frequency field strength or a SAR, and the numerical distribution map comprises a radio-frequency field map or a SAR distribution map of the magnetic resonance system [¶0012. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 14, Yang further teaches wherein the at least one scanning parameter comprises a magnetic field change rate or a maximum gradient slew rate, and the numerical distribution map comprises a magnetic field change rate distribution map of the magnetic resonance system [¶0049 and ¶0051. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 15, Yang further teaches further comprising: acquiring reference information, wherein the reference information comprises externally defined magnetic field change rate distribution information, and the magnetic field change rate distribution information comprises a magnetic field change rate in a defined spatial coordinate system, the defined spatial coordinate system corresponding to a magnetic field spatial coordinate system of the magnetic resonance system [¶0049 and ¶0051. See Figs. 2-4 and corresponding descriptions. See also rest of reference.]; and determining, from the reference information, a second numerical value of the magnetic field change rate corresponding to the sensitive region [¶0049 and ¶0051. See Figs. 2-4 and corresponding descriptions. See also rest of reference.]; wherein adjusting the limit value of the at least one scanning parameter on the basis of the first numerical value comprises: adjusting the limit value of the at least one scanning parameter on the basis of a relationship between the first numerical value and the second numerical value [¶0049 and ¶0051. See Figs. 2-4 and corresponding descriptions. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 16, Yang further teaches wherein the numerical distribution map comprises a magnetic field change rate distribution map of one or more gradient axes of the magnetic resonance system, and the reference information comprises defined magnetic field change rate distribution information of the one or more gradient axes [¶0049 and ¶0051. See Figs. 2-4 and corresponding descriptions. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 20, Yang further teaches a magnetic resonance system, comprising: a magnetic resonance assembly; and a controller, configured to control the magnetic resonance assembly to scan a subject to be scanned, and to perform the scanning method according to claim 1 [See Fig. 1. See also rest of reference.].
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Yang, in view of Xing (CN 110464352 A. English translation provided by Espacenet and attached to this action.).
Regarding claim 5, Yang teaches the limitations of claim 4, which this claim depends from.
However, Yang is silent in teaching wherein the sensitive region comprises: a region where an implant having the most stringent limit value for the at least one scanning parameter among a plurality of implants of the subject is located.
Xing further teaches wherein the sensitive region comprises: a region where an implant having the most stringent limit value for the at least one scanning parameter among a plurality of implants of the subject is located [¶0057, ¶0064-0067. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang and Xing because both references are in the field of MRI and because Xing teaches it is known that patients can have multiple implants [Xing - ¶0057, ¶0064-0067. See also rest of reference.].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Yang, in view of Ge (US 2021/0396828).
Regarding claim 7, Yang teaches the limitations of claim 6, which this claim depends from.
However, Yang is silent in teaching wherein determining, on the basis of the added implant identifier, the region where an implant of the subject is located comprises: determining, on the basis of edge position information of the implant identifier, the region where an implant is located.
Ge further teaches wherein determining, on the basis of the added implant identifier, the region where an implant of the subject is located comprises: determining, on the basis of edge position information of the implant identifier, the region where an implant is located [¶0007, ¶0018, ¶0020, ¶0073, ¶0134. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang and Ge because both references are in the field of MRI and because Ge teaches that it is known to use edge images of the implant to determine accurate positions of the implant [Ge - ¶0007, ¶0018, ¶0020, ¶0073, ¶0134. See also rest of reference.].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Yang, in view of Grodzki (US 2017/0205477).
Regarding claim 13, Yang teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Yang further teaches wherein the first numerical value comprises: a numerical value among numerical values corresponding to the sensitive region in the numerical distribution map [See ¶0049. See also rest of reference.].
However, Yang is silent in teaching a maximum numerical value.
Grodzki further teaches a maximum numerical value [¶0028. See also rest of reference.] and also teaches wherein the first numerical value comprises: a maximum numerical value among numerical values corresponding to the sensitive region in the numerical distribution map [¶0028. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang and Grodzki because both references are in the field of MRI and because Grodzki teaches it is known in the art to use maximum SAR values for determining limit values [Grodzki - ¶0028. See also rest of reference.].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 17-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, the closest prior art is considered Yang. However, Yang is silent in teaching wherein the adjusted limit value of the at least one scanning parameter is the product of the ratio between the first numerical value and the second numerical value, and the limit value before the adjustment.
Regarding claim 17, the closest prior art is considered Yang. However, Yang is silent in teaching wherein the first numerical value comprises one or more first-axis numerical values, and each of the first-axis numerical values is: a maximum numerical value determined from a numerical region of a magnetic field change rate distribution map of one gradient axis of the magnetic resonance system, the numerical region corresponding to the sensitive region; the second numerical value comprises one or more second-axis numerical values respectively determined from the defined magnetic field change rate distribution information of the one or more gradient axes, the second-axis numerical values corresponding to the sensitive region; and adjusting the limit value of the at least one scanning parameter on the basis of the first numerical value comprises: determining the ratios of the one or more second-axis numerical values to the corresponding one or more first-axis numerical values, respectively, so as to acquire one or more ratio values; and adjusting, on the basis of the one or more ratio values, a limit value of the magnetic field change rate or the maximum gradient slew rate of the one or more gradient axes of the magnetic resonance system.
Claims 18-19 are considered above the prior art for depending on claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20210018578 is also considered relevant because the reference teaches adjusting scan parameters because of implants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RISHI R PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-4385. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7 a.m. - 5 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/RISHI R PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights