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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1 & 3 appear to be “flow charts”.
Yet no details are filled in the boxes. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of
any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 1, 3 – 6, 10 – 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maerzendorfer (US-20120041300-A1) in view of Kim et al. (US-20220207721-A1).
Regarding claim 1
Maerzendorfer discloses
A computer-implemented method for executing a measurement program during magnetic resonance data acquisition ([0022]), comprising:
selecting a measurement program ([0020] & [0028] & [0031], measurement data is part of measurement program);
executing the selected measurement program to acquire magnetic resonance data and/or reconstruct image data from the acquired magnetic resonance data ([0020] & [0028] & [0031], the control program is selected by the computer);
acquiring measurement information prior to or during execution of the selected measurement program ([0031], the information is acquired during execution of selected program);
determining an item of evaluation information as a function of one or more of the magnetic resonance data, the reconstructed image data, and the measurement information ([0014], the evaluation item is the high-resolution images used as diagnostic information);
generating an item of assistance information as a function of the item of evaluation information via an analysis module ([0004], the item of assistance is the bowel data that are converted to colonoscopy data); and
Although strongly implied, Maerzendorfer does not disclose
“outputting the assistance information via a user interface”.
Kim, however, teaches
outputting the assistance information via a user interface ([0637]).
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 “user interface” as taught by Kim in the method of Maerzendorfer.
The justification for this modification would be to have a way to output the data after acquisition.
Regarding claim 3
Maerzendorfer in view of Kim teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Kim, applied to claim 3, further teaches
wherein the analysis module comprises one or more of a quality analysis module, a clinical analysis module ([0004]—[0006], the analysis unit analyzes the data clinically), a technical analysis module, and a general analysis module.
Regarding claim 4
Maerzendorfer in view of Kim teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Kim, applied to claim 4, further teaches
wherein the item of evaluation information is determined via a rule-based algorithm and/or machine learning-based algorithm ([0110] a new imaging parameter is issued with the machine learning-based algorithm).
Regarding claim 5
Maerzendorfer in view of Kim teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Maerzendorfer, applied to claim 5, further teaches
further comprising:
determining, via a recommendation module based on the item of evaluation information, a suggestion for a measurement step of the measurement program ([0004], the suggestion for the measurement step is the MRI images substituted for a colonoscopy and the further measurement of what needs to be done for the patient if the colonoscopy indicates problems).
Regarding claim 6
Maerzendorfer in view of Kim teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Kim, applied to claim 6, further teaches
wherein the measurement program comprises multiple measurement steps and, for one of the multiple measurement steps, support via an assistance system is selectable for a user ([0041]—[0043], the assistance system allows the user to choose target areas as well as imaging parameters).
Regarding claim 10
Maerzendorfer in view of Kim teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Kim, applied to claim 10, further teaches
wherein the method is performed via an assistance system comprising a configuration user interface to configure a selection of an analysis module or a recommendation module for a measurement step of the measurement program (Fig. 2, [0112]).
Regarding claim 11
Maerzendorfer in view of Kim teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Kim, applied to claim 11, further teaches
wherein the method is performed via an assistance system, and
wherein an analysis module or a recommendation module of the assistance system generates output data comprising a defined output data format ([0020] & [0025], the data format is training data among other formats).
Regarding claim 12
Maerzendorfer discloses
A magnetic resonance device ([0002]—[0004]), comprising:
a patient receiving area configured to receive a patient for a magnetic resonance examination during which magnetic resonance data acquisition is performed (Fig. 1, Ref 5, [0029]—[0031]); and
an assistance system configured to execute a measurement program ([0020] & [0028] & [0031], the control program is selected, “assisted” by the computer) during the magnetic resonance data acquisition by:
selecting a measurement program ([0020] & [0028] & [0031], measurement data is part of measurement program);
executing the selected measurement program to acquire magnetic resonance data and/or reconstruct image data from the acquired magnetic resonance data ([0020] & [0028] & [0031], the control program is selected by the computer);
acquiring measurement information prior to or during execution of the selected measurement program ([0031], the information is acquired during execution of selected program);
determining an item of evaluation information as a function of one or more of the magnetic resonance data, the reconstructed image data, and the measurement
information ([0014], the evaluation item is the high-resolution images used as diagnostic information);
generating an item of assistance information as a function of the item of evaluation information ([0004], the item of assistance is the bowel data that are converted to colonoscopy data); and
Maerzendorfer does not disclose
“outputting the assistance information via a user interface”.
Kim, however, teaches
outputting the assistance information via a user interface ([0637]).
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 “user interface” as taught by Kim in the method of Maerzendorfer.
The justification for this modification would be to have a way to output the data after acquisition.
Regarding claim 13
Maerzendorfer discloses
A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon ([0022]) that, when executed via an assistance system of a magnetic
resonance device, cause the magnetic resonance device to execute a measurement program during magnetic resonance data acquisition ([0002]—[0004]) by:
selecting a measurement program ([0020] & [0028] & [0031], measurement data is part of measurement program);
executing the selected measurement program to acquire magnetic resonance data and/or reconstruct image data from the acquired magnetic resonance data ([0020] & [0028] & [0031], the control program is selected by the computer);
acquiring measurement information prior to or during execution of the selected measurement program ([0031], the information is acquired during execution of selected program);
determining an item of evaluation information as a function of one or more of the magnetic resonance data, the reconstructed image data, and the measurement information ([0014], the evaluation item is the high-resolution images used as diagnostic information);
generating an item of assistance information as a function of the item of evaluation information([0004], the item of assistance is the bowel data that are converted to colonoscopy data); and
Maerzendorfer does not disclose
“outputting the assistance information via a user interface”.
Kim, however, teaches
outputting the assistance information via a user interface ([0637]).
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 “user interface” as taught by Kim in the method of Maerzendorfer.
The justification for this modification would be to have a way to output the data after acquisition.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maerzendorfer (US-20120041300-A1) in view of Kim et al. (US-20220207721-A1 in view of Choi (KR-20160100770-A).
Regarding claim 2
Maerzendorfer in view of Kim teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Maerzendorfer in view of Kim do not teach
“wherein the assistance information comprises status information of the analysis module”.
Choi, however, discloses
wherein the assistance information comprises status information of the analysis module (¶ 80 under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS).
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 “status information in the analysis module” as taught by Choi in the method of Maerzendorfer in view of Kim.
The justification for this modification would be to put out information about a patient’s health status—blood pressure, stress index, etc.
Claim(s) 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maerzendorfer (US-20120041300-A1) in view of Kim et al. (US-20220207721-A1) in view of Maltezos (WO-2008070198-A2).
Regarding claim 7
Maerzendorfer in view of Kim teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Maerzendorfer in view of Kim do not teach
“wherein the measurement program comprises multiple sequentially-executed measurement steps, and
wherein, for one of the multiple measurement steps for which support via an assistance system has been selected, a subsequent measurement step is only started upon completion of the one of the multiple measurement steps”.
Maltezos, however, teaches
wherein the measurement program comprises multiple sequentially-executed measurement steps, and
wherein, for one of the multiple measurement steps for which support via an assistance system has been selected, a subsequent measurement step is only started upon completion of the one of the multiple measurement steps ([00217]).
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 “sequentially-executed steps” as taught by Maltezos in the method of Maerzendorfer in view of Kim.
The justification for this modification would be to reduce scanning time and achieve better quality imaging of the sample ( ¶ 1 above Claims, Maltezos).
Regarding claim 8
Maerzendorfer in view of Kim teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Maerzendorfer in view of Kim do not teach
“wherein the measurement program comprises multiple measurement steps and, for each of the multiple measurement steps for which support via an assistance system has been selected, the support is performed in a quasi-real time mode or a real-time mode”.
Maltezos, however, teaches
wherein the measurement program comprises multiple measurement steps and, for each of the multiple measurement steps for which support via an assistance system has been selected, the support is performed in a quasi-real time mode or a real-time mode ([00217]).
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 “sequentially-executed steps” as taught by Maltezos in the method of Maerzendorfer in view of Kim.
The justification for this modification would be to reduce scanning time and achieve better quality imaging of the sample ( ¶ 1 above Claims, Maltezos).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maerzendorfer (US-20120041300-A1) in view of Kim et al. (US-20220207721-A1) in view of Bhavani (CN-106233322-A).
Regarding claim 9
Maerzendorfer in view of Kim teach the method as claimed in claim 1,
Maerzendorfer in view of Kim do not teach
“wherein the method is performed via an assistance system, and wherein an exchange of one or more of the magnetic resonance data, the image data, the measurement information, the item of evaluation information, the item of assistance information, and an item of extended assistance information of a recommendation module is performed via a transaction manager of an assistance system”.
Bhavani, however, teaches
wherein the method is performed via an assistance system, and wherein an exchange of one or more of the magnetic resonance data, the image data, the
measurement information, the item of evaluation information, the item of assistance information, and an item of extended assistance information of a recommendation module is performed via a transaction manager of an assistance system (¶ 4 under Invention Contents).
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 “extended assistance information from recommendation module” as taught by Bhavani in the method of Maerzendorfer in view of Kim.
The justification for this modification would be to recommend a course or action (treatment) for the patient.
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