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 .
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, 7, 8, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuratani (US-20210364588-A1) in view of Itagaki et al. (US-5928146-A).
Regarding claim 1
Kuratani discloses
A magnetic resonance imaging apparatus ([0002]) comprising:
an imaging unit that collects a nuclear magnetic resonance signal generated from a subject through nuclear magnetic resonance ([0002] & [0007]); and
one or more processors ([0027] & [0033]) which is configured to reconstruct an image of the subject using the nuclear magnetic resonance signal ([0011]), and to collect body motion information of the subject ([0054]),
wherein the imaging unit collects a navigator echo for detecting a variation in a center frequency of the nuclear magnetic resonance ([0003]—[0005]), the one or more processors calculate a correction value for correcting the variation in the center frequency by using a phase change of the navigator echo collected by the imaging unit ([0011]),
Although strongly implied, Kuratani does not disclose
“and calculate the correction value by eliminating an influence of a body motion with reference to the collected body motion information”.
Itagaki, however, discloses
and calculate the correction value by eliminating an influence of a body motion with reference to the collected body motion information (Claim 1 (6)).
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 “correction value by eliminating influence of body motion” as taught by Itagaki in the apparatus of Kuratani.
The justification for this modification would be to minimize motion artifacts in the MRI image.
Regarding claim 7
Kuratani in view of Itagaki teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 1,
Kuratani, applied to claim 7, further teaches
wherein the one or more processors calculate the correction value by suppressing, in a case where the collected body motion information includes a periodic motion, a phase change caused by the periodic motion included in the phase change of the navigator echo ([0048], the correction is based on the phase change).
Regarding claim 8
Kuratani in view of Itagaki teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 7,
Kuratani, applied to claim 8, further teaches
wherein the one or more processors use a value obtained by multiplying the correction value calculated from the phase change of the navigator echo by a
predetermined coefficient as the correction value for correcting the variation in the center frequency ([0040] & [0044]).
Regarding claim 12
Kuratani discloses
A center frequency correction method of correcting a variation in a center frequency of an emitted radiofrequency in a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus ([0003]—[0009]), the method comprising:
a step of calculating a correction value for the center frequency by calculating a phase difference using two or more nuclear magnetic resonance signals acquired as navigator echoes from a subject during an examination ([0002]—[0009]); and
a step of collecting body motion information from a device that detects a body motion of the subject during the examination ([0054]),
Although strongly implied, Kuratani does not disclose
“wherein, in the step of calculating the correction value, the correction value is calculated by eliminating an influence of the body motion with reference to the body motion information”.
Itagaki, however, discloses
wherein, in the step of calculating the correction value, the correction value is calculated by eliminating an influence of the body motion with reference to the body motion information (Claim 1 (6)).
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 “correction value by eliminating influence of body motion” as taught by Itagaki in the apparatus of Kuratani.
The justification for this modification would be to minimize motion artifacts in the MRI image.
Claim(s) 2 – 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuratani (US-20210364588-A1) in view of Itagaki et al. (US-5928146-A) in view of Lee (CN-105142503-A).
Regarding claim 2
Kuratani in view of Itagaki teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 1,
Kuratani in view of Itagaki do not teach
“wherein the one or more processors collect the body motion information by analyzing a video from a camera that detects the body motion of the subject”.
Lee, however, discloses
wherein the one or more processors collect the body motion information by analyzing a video from a camera that detects the body motion of the subject (¶ 2 under Preferred Embodiment).
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 “camera to detect bodily motion” as taught by Lee in the apparatus of Kuratani in view of Itagaki.
The justification for this modification would be to get a full body scan of the patient’s motion in order to correct for its effect on the B.sub.0 field.
Regarding claim 3
Kuratani in view of Itagaki teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 1,
Kuratani in view of Itagaki do not teach
“wherein the one or more processors compare a magnitude of the body motion with a predetermined threshold value, and does not use the navigator echo collected in a case where the magnitude of the body motion is equal to or greater than the threshold value, for calculating the correction value”.
Lee, however, discloses
wherein the one or more processors compare a magnitude of the body motion with a predetermined threshold value, and does not use the navigator echo collected in a case where the magnitude of the body motion is equal to or greater than the threshold value, for calculating the correction value (¶ 11 under Preferred Embodiment).
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 comparison with a threshold value” as taught by Lee in the apparatus of Kuratani in view of Itagaki.
The justification for this modification would be to have a benchmark to compare the collected data with.
Regarding claim 4
Kuratani in view of Itagaki in view of Lee teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 3,
Lee, applied to claim 4, further teaches
wherein the one or more processors do not calculate the correction value in a case where the magnitude of the body motion is equal to or greater than the threshold value, and perform body motion correction on a nuclear magnetic resonance signal for image reconstruction of the subject or the image of the subject using the body motion information (¶ 11 under Preferred Embodiment).
Regarding claim 5
Kuratani in view of Itagaki in view of Lee teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 3,
Lee, applied to claim 5, further teaches
wherein the one or more processors estimate a correction value during a period from when the magnitude of the body motion is equal to or greater than the threshold value until the magnitude of the body motion falls below the threshold value, based on a correction value calculated before the magnitude of the body motion is equal to or greater than the threshold value (¶ 11 under Preferred Embodiment).
Regarding claim 6
Kuratani in view of Itagaki teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 1,
Kuratani, applied to claim 6, further teaches
wherein the one or more processors use the body motion information to correct a correction value calculated using the navigator echo collected ([0005]—[0006]),
Kuratani in view of Itagaki do not teach
“in a case where a magnitude of the body motion is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value”.
Lee, however, teaches
in a case where a magnitude of the body motion is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value (¶ 11 under Preferred Embodiment).
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 “comparing the body motion to a predetermined threshold” as taught by Lee in the apparatus of Kuratani in view of Itagaki.
The justification for this modification would be to compare the data to a threshold to know whether or not action need be taken on either cleaning the data up or taking new data to minimize motion artifacts.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuratani (US-20210364588-A1) in view of Itagaki et al. (US-5928146-A) in view of Nakanishi (JP-2015002834-A).
Regarding claim 9
Kuratani in view of Itagaki teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 7,
Kuratani in view of Itagaki do not teach
“wherein the one or more processors calculate the correction value using a plurality of the navigator echoes acquired at the same time phase of the periodic motion”.
Nakanishi, however, discloses
wherein the one or more processors calculate the correction value using a plurality of the navigator echoes acquired at the same time phase of the periodic motion (¶ 1 under TECHNICAL-FIELD).
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 “correction value of phase and periodic motion” as taught by Nakanishi in the apparatus of Kuratani in view of Itagaki.
The justification for this modification would be to minimize image artifacts.
Claim(s) 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuratani (US-20210364588-A1) in view of Itagaki et al. (US-5928146-A) in view of Kannengisser et al. (US-20110080167-A1).
Regarding claim 10
Kuratani in view of Itagaki teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 1,
Kuratani in view of Itagaki do not teach
“wherein the imaging unit includes a receive coil consisting of a plurality of small coils that receive the nuclear magnetic resonance signals, and
the one or more processors calculate the correction value using the navigator echo received by each of the plurality of small coils”.
Kannengisser, however, discloses
wherein the imaging unit includes a receive coil consisting of a plurality of small coils that receive the nuclear magnetic resonance signals, and
the one or more processors calculate the correction value using the navigator echo received by each of the plurality of small coils ([0011] & [0018]).
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 “correction value with navigator for coils” as taught by Kannengisser in the apparatus of Kuratani in view of Itagaki.
The justification for this modification would be to provide a corrected value of an object’s displacement (Abstract, Kannengisser).
Regarding claim 11
Kuratani in view of Itagaki in view of Kannengisser teach the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus according to claim 10,
Kannengisser, applied to claim 11, further teaches
wherein the one or more processors acquire a site where the body motion occurs from the body motion information, and selects a navigator echo of a small coil to be used for calculating the correction value by using the site where the body motion occurs and sensitivity of the plurality of small coils ([0011] & [0018]).
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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/Frederick Wenderoth/
Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights