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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sorensen et al. (“Three-dimensional, isotropic MRI: a unified approach to quantification and visualization in congenital heart disease”. 2005 – Cited in IDS).
Sorensen et al. discloses an imaging method comprising: causing a magnetic resonance imaging system to apply a pulse sequence (“MR imaging”; page 285); acquiring magnetic resonance imaging data of a subject based on the applied pulse sequence (“MR imaging”; page 285); determining a CMR imaging parameter after acquiring the CMR imaging data (“Interactive planar reformatting and two-dimensional quantification”; page 285); and retrospectively reconstructing a CMR image from the acquired CMR imaging data based on the CMR imaging parameter (“Interactive planar reformatting and two-dimensional quantification”; page 285).
With respect to claim 2, Sorensen et al. discloses wherein the CMR imaging parameter is a two-dimensional imaging plane and the CMR image is a two-dimensional cross-section image from the imaging plane (“Interactive planar reformatting and two-dimensional quantification”; page 285).
Claim(s) 1, 13, 15, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koktzoglou et al. (US 2014/0018666).
Koktzoglou et al. et al. discloses an imaging method comprising: causing a magnetic resonance imaging system to apply a pulse sequence ([0037]); acquiring magnetic resonance imaging data of a subject based on the applied pulse sequence ([0037]); determining a CMR imaging parameter after acquiring the CMR imaging data ([0042]); and retrospectively reconstructing a CMR image from the acquired CMR imaging data based on the CMR imaging parameter ([0042]).
With respect to claim 13, Koktzoglou et al. discloses an inversion pulse ([0012]).
With respect to claim 15, Koktzoglou et al. discloses selecting a desired inversion time ([0042]).
With respect to claim 17, Koktzoglou et al. discloses imaging data acquired from a thoracic cavity of the subject (Fig. 2B).
With respect to claim 19, Koktzoglou et al. discloses without contrast agent ([0002]).
With respect to claim 20, Koktzoglou et al. discloses a SSFP sequence ([0008]).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2017/0074959).
Li et al. discloses an imaging method comprising: during a first acquisition period, causing a magnetic resonance imaging system to continuously acquire first imaging data of a subject regardless of a cardiac phase or a respiratory phase of the subject ([0042]); during a second acquisition period, causing the MRI system to apply a pulse sequence including a heart beat gated inversion pulse, and to continuously acquire second imaging data for a predetermined period of time following the inversion pulse ([0042]); automatically identifying the cardiac phase or the respiratory phase of the subject associated with each element of the acquired first imaging data based on the acquired first imaging data ([0045]); automatically organizing the acquired first imaging data according to the identified cardiac phase or the identified respiratory phase; reconstructing a first three-dimensional time-resolved image from the organized data ([0045]); determining a desired inversion time after acquiring the second imaging data; and retrospectively reconstructing a second image based on the desired inversion time ([0035]).
With respect to claim 22, Li et al. discloses wherein a total duration of the first acquisition period and the second acquisition period is at least 5 minutes and less than 30 minutes ([0046]).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koktzoglou et al. (US 2014/0018666) in view of Sorensen et al. (2005 – Cited in IDS).
Koktzoglou et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for wherein the CMR parameter is a two-dimensional plane. However, Sorensen et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor it is well known to select a two-dimensional imaging plane and a two-dimensional cross-section image from the imaging plane (“Interactive planar reformatting and two-dimensional quantification”; page 285). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Koktzoglou et al. with selecting a two-dimensional plane as taught by Sorensen et al. in order to allow visualization of arbitrary imaging planes (“Interactive planar reformatting and two-dimensional quantification”; page 285).
Claim(s) 3-7, 12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koktzoglou et al. (US 2014/0018666) in view of Li et al. (US 2017/0074959).
With respect to claim 3, Koktzoglou et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for acquisition time. However, Li et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor known acquisition time of at least 5 minutes and less than 30 minutes ([0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Koktzoglou et al. with acquisition time for at least 5 minutes and less than 30 minutes as taught by Li et al. as it is well known in the art.
With respect to claims 4-7 and 12, Koktzoglou et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for identifying the cardiac or respiratory phase; organizing the acquired CMR imaging data according to the identified cardiac or respiratory phase; and reconstructing the 3D image. However, Li et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor identifying the cardiac or respiratory phase ([0045]); organizing the acquired CMR imaging data according to the identified cardiac or respiratory phase ([0045]); and reconstructing the 3D image ([0035]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Koktzoglou et al. with organizing the identified cardiac or respiratory phase for image reconstruction as it is well known in retrospective reconstruction.
With respect to claim 16, Li et al. discloses imaging for at least 400 ms ([0030]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koktzoglou et al. (US 2014/0018666) in view of Li et al. (US 2017/0074959). as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 10,317,499).
Koktzoglou et al. in view of Lie et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for identifying artifact in the iteration and comparing to a threshold. However, Chen et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor is it well known in iterative reconstruction to identify and compare an artifact to a predetermined threshold (col. 6, lines 19-32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Koktzoglou et al. with identifying and comparing artifact level thresholds in order to provide artifact reduction and/or elimination (col. 6, lines 19-32).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koktzoglou et al. (US 2014/0018666) in view of Li et al. (US 2017/0074959). as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Bystrov et al. (US 2009/0154783).
Koktzoglou et al. in view of Li et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for identifying a short axis, a long axis or a 4-chamber imaging plane. However, Bystrov et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor identifying short and long axis are known imaging views in cardiac imaging ([0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Koktzoglou et al. with identifying short and long axis as taught by Bystrov et al. as it is well known in cardiac imaging ([0037]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koktzoglou et al. (US 2014/0018666) in view of Li et al. (US 2017/0074959). as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Keupp et al. (WO 2022/194715).
Koktzoglou et al. in view of Li et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for identifying a short axis, a long axis or a 4-chamber imaging plane. However, Keupp et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor identifying short axis and 4-chamber are known imaging views in cardiac imaging (page 21, lines 6-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Koktzoglou et al. with identifying short axis and 4-chamber view as taught by Keupp et al. as it is well known in cardiac imaging (page 21, lines 6-10).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koktzoglou et al. (US 2014/0018666) in view of Li et al. (US 2017/0074959). as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of O’Brien et al. (US 2020/0297284).
Koktzoglou et al. in view of Li et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for identifying scar tissue. However, O’Brien et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor identifying scar tissue by comparing to a predetermined threshold is well known in the art of cardiac imaging ([0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Koktzoglou et al. with scar tissue detection as taught by O’Brien et al. as it is well known in cardiac imaging to identify scar tissue location ([0007]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koktzoglou et al. (US 2014/0018666) in view of Li et al. (US 2017/0074959). as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sharif et al. (US 2015/0192653).
Koktzoglou et al. in view of Li et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for an isotropic resolution less than 2 mm. However, Sharif et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor an isotropic resolution less than 2 mm is well known in the art of cardiac imaging ([0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Koktzoglou et al. with the isotropic resolution as taught by Sharif et al. as known in the art.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koktzoglou et al. (US 2014/0018666) in view of Marrouche et al. (US 2014/0378822).
Koktzoglou et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for wherein the inversion pulse is applied with each detected heart beat. However, Marrouche et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor applying the inversion pulse at every predetermined heart beat in order to optimize scan parameters ([0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Koktzoglou et al. with applying the inversion pulse at every predetermined heart beat as taught by Marrouche et al. in order to optimize scan parameters ([0005]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koktzoglou et al. (US 2014/0018666) in view of Li et al. (US 2017/0074959). as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Sutton et al. (US 2019/0213779).
Koktzoglou et al. in view of Li et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for generating a digital twin of the heart of the subject. However, Sutton et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor generating 3D digital heart models directly from MR scans is well known in the art ([0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Koktzoglou et al. with generating 3D digital heart models as taught by Sutton et al. as it is well known to create a patient specific heart model for pre-surgery planning ([0021]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Anhtuan T Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
/PETER LUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights