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 – 3, 5 – 13, 15 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US-20210068699-A1).
Regarding claim 1
Liu discloses
A method for performing a magnetic resonance examination on a patient with a magnetic resonance apparatus ([0004]), the method being computer-implemented ([0018]) and comprising:
providing patient-specific information about the patient ([0014] & [0021]);
ascertaining whether at least one latent error test is to be performed to check the magnetic resonance apparatus using patient-specific information ([0014]—[0016]);
when it is ascertained that at least one latent error test is to be performed:
performing at least one latent error test on the magnetic resonance
apparatus ([0014], the latent error, i.e., “implant” is identified); and
performing the magnetic resonance examination in dependence on a result of
at least one latent error test ([0014], the magnetic scan is modified in dependency as a result of the discovered latent error).
Regarding claim 2
Liu discloses the method of claim 1,
Liu, applied to claim 2, further discloses
wherein the patient-specific information comprises information about an implant in the patient ([0014]—[0016]).
Regarding claim 3
Liu discloses the method of claim 1,
Liu, applied to claim 3, further discloses
wherein the information about the implant in the patient comprises at least one limit value to be complied with ([0046]—[0048], the MRI approach when an implant is discovered is “conservative”—by changing the MRI parameters to accommodate the implant—i.e., setting limit values).
Regarding claim 5
Liu discloses the method of claim 1.
Liu, applied to claim 5, further discloses
wherein ascertaining whether at least one latent error test should be performed comprises ascertaining a patient-specific risk of the magnetic resonance examination that is mitigatable by the at least one latent error test based on the patient-specific information ([0049], the bed movement/spatial gradient is changed based on the error risk derived from patient information—i.e., the implant).
Regarding claim 6
Liu discloses the method of claim 5,
Liu, applied to claim 6, further teaches
wherein the patient-specific risk of the magnetic resonance examination is ascertained depending on a probability of error occurrence, severity of error consequences, or a combination thereof ([0049, depending on the severity of error—i.e., maximum gradient value).
Regarding claim 7
Liu discloses the method of claim 1.
Liu, applied to claim 7, further discloses
triggering at least one malfunction of the magnetic resonance apparatus to be checked; and
checking whether the at least one malfunction of the magnetic resonance apparatus to be checked is detected, a corresponding response is triggered, or a combination thereof ([0049]).
Regarding claim 8
Liu discloses the method of claim 7.
Liu, applied to claim 7, further discloses
wherein at least one malfunction to be checked relates to safety of the patient ([0049], the check relates to keep the gradient within a maximum value that will not cause health damage to the patient), correct function of the magnetic resonance apparatus during the magnetic resonance examination, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 9
Liu discloses the method of claim 1,
Liu, applied to claim 9, further discloses
wherein the magnetic resonance examination is performed immediately after at least one latent error test has been performed ([0046]—[0048], the parameters are adjusted after the pre-screen to accommodate the implant(s). Then the MRI imaging is completed right afterward).
Regarding claim 10
Liu discloses
A magnetic resonance apparatus ([0015]) configured to perform a magnetic resonance examination on a patient ([0001]—[0003]), the magnetic resonance apparatus comprising:
a processor ([0018]) configured to:
provide patient-specific information about the patient ([0014] & [0021]);
ascertain whether at least one latent error test is to be performed to check the
magnetic resonance apparatus using patient-specific information ([0014]—[0016]);
when it is ascertained that at least one latent error test is to be performed:
perform at least one latent error test on the magnetic resonance
apparatus ([0014], the latent error, i.e., “implant” is identified); and
perform the magnetic resonance examination depending on a result
of the at least one latent error test ([0014], the magnetic scan is modified in dependency as a result of the discovered latent error).
Regarding claim 11
Liu discloses
In a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions executable by one or more processors ([0018]) to perform a magnetic resonance examination on a patient with a magnetic resonance apparatus ([0001]—
[0011]), the instructions comprising:
providing patient-specific information about the patient ([0014] & [0021]);
ascertaining whether at least one latent error test is to be performed to check the magnetic resonance apparatus using patient-specific information ([0014]—[0016]);
when it is ascertained that at least one latent error test is to be performed:
performing at least one latent error test on the magnetic resonance
apparatus ([0014], the latent error, i.e., “implant” is identified); and
performing the magnetic resonance examination in dependence on a result of
at least one latent error test ([0014], the magnetic scan is modified in dependency as a result of the discovered latent error).
Regarding claim 12
Liu discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11,
Liu, applied to claim 12, further discloses
wherein the patient-specific information comprises information about an implant in the patient ([0002]—[0003]).
Regarding claim 13
Liu discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11,
Liu, applied to claim 13, further teaches
wherein the information about the implant in the patient comprises at least one limit value to be complied with ([0046]—[0048], the MRI approach
when an implant is discovered is “conservative”—by changing the MRI parameters to accommodate the implant—i.e., setting limit values).
Regarding claim 15
Liu discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11,
Liu, applied to claim 15, further teaches
wherein ascertaining whether at least one latent error test should be performed comprises ascertaining a patient-specific risk of the magnetic resonance
examination that is mitigatable by the at least one latent error test based on the patient-specific information ([0049], the bed movement/spatial gradient is changed based on the error risk derived from patient information—i.e., the implant).
Regarding claim 16
Liu discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15,
Liu, applied to claim 16, further teaches
wherein the patient-specific risk of the magnetic resonance examination is ascertained depending on a probability of error occurrence, severity of error consequences, or a combination thereof ([0049, depending on the severity of error—i.e., maximum gradient value).
.Regarding claim 17
Liu discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11,
Liu, applied to claim 15, further teaches
wherein at least one latent error test comprises:
triggering at least one malfunction of the magnetic resonance apparatus to be checked; and
checking whether at least one malfunction of the magnetic resonance apparatus to be checked is detected, a corresponding response is triggered, or a combination thereof ([0049]).
Regarding claim 18
Liu discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17,
Liu, applied to claim 18, further teaches
wherein at least one malfunction to be checked relates to safety of the patient ([0049], the check relates to keep the gradient within a maximum value that will not cause health damage to the patient), correct function of the magnetic resonance apparatus during the magnetic resonance examination, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 19
Liu discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11,
Liu, applied to claim 19, further teaches
wherein the magnetic resonance examination is performed immediately after at least one latent error test has been performed ([0046]—[0048], the parameters are adjusted after the pre-screen to accommodate the implant(s). Then the MRI imaging is completed right afterward).
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) 4, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US-20210068699-A1) in view of Roll (US-20220171005-A1).
Regarding claim 4
Liu discloses the method of claim 1,
Liu does not disclose
“wherein the at least one limit value to be complied with includes a maximum gradient slew rate”.
Roll, however, teaches
wherein the at least one limit value to be complied with includes a maximum gradient slew rate ([0043]).
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 “gradient slew rate maximum” as taught by Roll in the method of Liu.
The justification for this modification would be to make sure the SAR stays within safe limits.
Regarding claim 14
Liu discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13,
Liu does not disclose
“wherein the at least one limit value to be complied with includes a maximum gradient slew rate”.
Roll, however, discloses
wherein the at least one limit value to be complied with includes a maximum gradient slew rate ([0043]).
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 “gradient slew rate maximum” as taught by Roll in the method of Liu.
The justification for this modification would be to make sure the SAR stays within safe limits.
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.
/Frederick Wenderoth/
Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights