DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (U.S. Patent No. 6853191). Miller teaches applying a gradient echo sequence to an object (DWI methods discussed throughout document) and performing a dummy scan on the object until a steady-state of the gradient echo sequence is reached (col. 8, lines 6-14); continuing the dummy scan and maintaining the steady-state of the gradient echo sequence (“To maintain the steady-state, dummy cycles without acquisition were gathered while waiting for cardiac triggers”); and in response to detecting a trigger signal while the gradient echo sequence is in the steady-state, acquiring a gradient echo magnetic resonance signal of the object (“data was collected in an interleaved order such that the phase encodes acquired during a single cardiac cycle were evenly distributed across ky-space. This process was repeated for successive cardiac cycles until all phase encodes had been acquired”).
Regarding claim 16, Miller teaches at least one processor (a processor is inherent as it is inherently necessary for an MRI system); the at least one processor is configured to cause the system to perform operations including: applying a gradient echo sequence to an object (DWI methods discussed throughout document) and performing a dummy scan on the object until a steady-state of the gradient echo sequence is reached (col. 8, lines 6-14); continuing the dummy scan and maintaining the steady-state of the gradient echo sequence (“To maintain the steady-state, dummy cycles without acquisition were gathered while waiting for cardiac triggers”); and in response to detecting a trigger signal while the gradient echo sequence is in the steady-state, acquiring a gradient echo magnetic resonance signal of the object. (“data was collected in an interleaved order such that the phase encodes acquired during a single cardiac cycle were evenly distributed across ky-space. This process was repeated for successive cardiac cycles until all phase encodes had been acquired”).
Regarding claim 2, in response to receiving the trigger signal, performing the dummy scan on the object during a trigger delay phase corresponding to the trigger signal (“Additionally, two to three dummy cycles (80-120 ms) were inserted following detection of a trigger”); during a steady-state acquisition phase after the trigger delay phase ends, acquiring the gradient echo magnetic resonance signal of the object. (“data was collected in an interleaved order such that the phase encodes acquired during a single cardiac cycle were evenly distributed across ky-space.”)
Regarding claims 4 and 17, after acquiring the gradient echo magnetic resonance signal of the object, the method further comprises: performing a next dummy scan on the object until a next trigger signal is received. (col. 8 recites “This process was repeated for successive cardiac cycles until all phase encodes had been acquired”).
Regarding claims 15 and 18, fig. 6 depicts reconstructing, based on the gradient echo magnetic resonance signal, a magnetic resonance image of the object.
Regarding claim 19, Miller teaches applying a gradient echo sequence to an object (DWI methods discussed throughout document) and performing a dummy scan on the object until a steady-state of the gradient echo sequence is reached (col. 8, lines 6-14); continuing the dummy scan and maintaining the steady-state of the gradient echo sequence (“To maintain the steady-state, dummy cycles without acquisition were gathered while waiting for cardiac triggers”); in response to detecting a trigger signal while the gradient echo sequence is in the steady-state, acquiring a gradient echo magnetic resonance signal of the object (“data was collected in an interleaved order such that the phase encodes acquired during a single cardiac cycle were evenly distributed across ky-space. This process was repeated for successive cardiac cycles until all phase encodes had been acquired”).
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) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (U.S. Patent No. 6853191) in view of Madsen (WO2018111826). Miller teaches the salient features of the claimed invention. Madsen is also directed to acquiring gradient echo magnetic resonance signals of an object and (¶36) using dummy scans before imaging in order to obtain a steady state (¶20). Madsen teaches
after acquiring the gradient echo magnetic resonance signal of the object, the method further comprises: performing a next dummy scan (td) on the object after a first preset length of time from a time point that acquiring the gradient echo magnetic resonance signal until receiving a next trigger signal. See 218 in fig. 2B. The applicant is also directed to review ¶49. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Madsen for the purpose of reducing a waste of stimulation cycles.
Regarding claim 10, ¶21 of Madsen teaches the first preset length of time is determined by: determining, based on a historical trigger interval (“synchronization device is configured to receive an initial indication of stimulation from the stimulation system”) and a triggering time point of a previous trigger signal (“adding a period of the simulations provided by the stimulation system to a time of the initial indication”), the first preset length of time, the historical trigger interval being an interval length between two adjacent trigger signals. See fig. 2B.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (U.S. Patent No. 6853191) in view of Hiller (WO2010093470). Miller teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for in response to determining that a scanning feature of a current phase satisfies a first preset condition, triggering a stop instruction, the stop instruction being configured to pause the next dummy scan. Hiller teaches in fig. 3, (see section Ei) that it was known to determine that a scanning feature of a current phase satisfies a first preset condition (i=imax), triggering a stop instruction, the stop instruction being configured to pause the next dummy scan (end). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Hiller for the purpose of completing the scan.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (U.S. Patent No. 6853191) in view of Natsuaki (U.S. Publication No. 20150038829). Miller teaches applying a gradient echo sequence to an object (DWI methods discussed throughout document) and performing a dummy scan on the object until a steady-state of the gradient echo sequence is reached (col. 8, lines 6-14); continuing the dummy scan and maintaining the steady-state of the gradient echo sequence (“To maintain the steady-state, dummy cycles without acquisition were gathered while waiting for cardiac triggers”); in response to detecting a trigger signal while the gradient echo sequence is in the steady-state, acquiring a gradient echo magnetic resonance signal of the object (“data was collected in an interleaved order such that the phase encodes acquired during a single cardiac cycle were evenly distributed across ky-space. This process was repeated for successive cardiac cycles until all phase encodes had been acquired”). It is the examiner’s position that the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations;The following is presented solely to advance prosecution. Natsuaki teaches a system (fig. 1) where the system is configured to communicate with a terminal device (28) of a user, in response to receiving configuration information from the terminal device of the user, the system performs, based on the configuration information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Natsuaki for the purpose of allowing user adjustment of imaging parameters.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6-8 and 11-14 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hu (U.S. Publication No. 20110175609) teaches a user interface 110 for applying a gradient echo sequence to an object and performing a dummy scan on the object until a steady-state of the gradient echo sequence is reached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2122. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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 E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights