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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the first discloses a preparation phase including (a) a spatially low-resolution survey scan forming a basis for a geometry planning and (b) a spatially low-resolution calibration scan to determine coil sensitivity profiles of the RF receiver array. Then the claim discloses a diagnostic imaging phase, wherein the diagnostic imaging phase includes “subjecting the object to the spatially low-resolution survey scan to generate a first set of MR signals at a first echo time” and “subjecting the object to the spatially low-resolution calibration scan to generate a second set of MR signals at a second echo time which is different from the first echo time”. The claim is considered indefinite because both the preparation phase and diagnostic imaging phase disclose performing the same spatially low-resolution survey scan and the spatially low-resolution calibration scan. Claims 2-7 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the claim discloses “the third set of MR signals” which lacks antecedent basis and is considered indefinite.
Regarding claim 5, the claim discloses “the third imaging sequence” which lacks antecedent basis and is considered indefinite because it is not clear if claim 5 should depend from claim 2 or another claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonetti (US 2013/0249553), in view of Moriguchi (“Spiral Dixon Techniques Using Sensitivity Encoding”).
Regarding claim 1, Simonetti teaches a method of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of an object placed in a main magnetic field (Bo) within an examination volume of an MR system that includes a radio frequency (RF) receiver array, the method comprising:
a preparation phase that includes (a) a spatially low-resolution survey scan forming a basis for a geometry planning [¶0023-0025, ¶0033,¶0054. See also rest of reference.] and (b) a spatially low-resolution calibration scan to determine coil sensitivity profiles of the RF receiver array [¶0020-0021, ¶0028, ¶0055-0056. See also rest of reference.] and
a diagnostic imaging phase that includes a diagnostic imaging sequence in which k- space data are acquired at spatially high-resolution encoding with the use of the geometry planning [¶0012-0013. See also rest of reference.], wherein the diagnostic imaging phase includes:
subjecting the object to the spatially low-resolution survey scan to generate a first set of MR signals at a first echo time [See multi-point Dixon. ¶0017-0019. See also rest of reference.],
acquiring the first set of MR signals from the object [See multi-point Dixon. ¶0017-0019. See also rest of reference.],
subjecting the object to the spatially low-resolution calibration scan to generate a second set of MR signals at a second echo time which is different from the first echo time [See multi-point Dixon. ¶0017-0019. See also rest of reference.],
acquiring the second set of MR signals from the object [See multi-point Dixon. ¶0017-0019. See also rest of reference.], and
deriving at least one of a water map, a fat map, a Bo map from the first and second sets of MR signals using a Dixon method [¶0014-0015, ¶0018, ¶0025, ¶0027, ¶0039. See also rest of reference.].
However, Simonetti is silent in teaching wherein the first and second imaging sequences further differ with respect to at least one of: field of view, image resolution, repetition time, k-space sampling pattern, relaxation time weighting.
Moriguchi, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the first and second imaging sequences further differ with respect to at least one of: field of view, image resolution, repetition time, k-space sampling pattern, relaxation time weighting [See Methods section, “To avoid a prescan, one of the data sets may be acquired with full k-space data and the sensitivity profiles are created from the image reconstructed from the full data set.” Therefore, one of the pulse sequences for the Dixon method can be acquired with a different k-space sampling pattern. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Simonetti and Moriguchi because both references are in the field of combining Dixon methods with Sensitivity Encoding in MRI and because Moriguchi teaches it is known in the art to acquire a full k-space dataset for determining sensitivity profiles [Moriguchi – Methods section].
Regarding claim 2, Simonetti and Moriguchi teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Simonetti teaches wherein the at least one of the water map, the fat map, and or the Bo map are derived for an overlap area of the fields of view of the survey imaging sequence and the calibration sequence [See Calibration sequence. See Fig. 2-3 and corresponding description. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Simonetti and Moriguchi teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Simonetti further teaches wherein the object is subjected to the diagnostic imaging sequence to generate a diagnostic set of MR signals, wherein the image resolution of the diagnostic imaging sequence is higher than the image resolution of the first and/or second imaging sequences [See diagnostic MR image. See ¶0012-0013. See also rest of reference.], wherein the third set of MR signals is acquired and reconstructed into an MR image, the reconstruction involving compensation for Bo inhomogeneity based on the Bo map derived from the first and second sets of MR signals [¶0018, ¶0025, ¶0039-0040, ¶0057. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 4, Simonetti and Moriguchi teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Simonetti further teaches wherein the object is subjected to a third imaging sequence to generate a third set of MR signals, wherein the third set of MR signals is acquired and reconstructed into an MR image, with Bo inhomogeneity being compensated for by shimming of the main magnetic field based on the Bo map derived from the first and second sets of MR signals [¶0018, ¶0025, ¶0039-0040, ¶0057. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 5, Simonetti and Moriguchi teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Simonetti further teaches wherein the field of view of the third imaging sequence is contained in the overlap area of the fields of view of the first and second imaging sequences [¶0018, ¶0025, ¶0039-0040, ¶0057. See water and fat regions. See Fig. 2-3. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 8, Simonetti teaches a magnetic resonance (MR) system comprising: at least one main magnet coil configured to generate a uniform, static main magnetic field Bo within an examination volume, a number of gradient coils configured to generate switched magnetic field gradients in different spatial directions within the examination volume, at least one RF coilgradients, and a reconstruction unit configured to reconstruct MR images from the received MR signals [See Fig. 1, wherein the MRI and its components are shown. See also rest of reference.], wherein the MR system is configured to perform the following steps in a preparation phase:
subjecting the object to a spatially low-resolution survey scan to generate a first set of MR signals at a first echo time forming a basis for a geometry planning [¶0023-0025, ¶0033,¶0054. See multi-point Dixon. ¶0017-0019. See also rest of reference.],
acquiring the first set of MR signals from the object [See multi-point Dixon. ¶0017-0019. See also rest of reference.],
subjecting the object to a spatially low-resolution calibration scan to generate a second set of MR signals at a second echo time to determine coil sensitivity profiles of the RF receiver array and which is different from the first echo time [¶0020-0021, ¶0028, ¶0055-0056. See multi-point Dixon. ¶0017-0019. See also rest of reference.],
acquiring the second set of MR signals from the object [See multi-point Dixon. ¶0017-0019. See also rest of reference.], and
deriving a water map, a fat map, and a Bo map from the first and second sets of MR signals using a Dixon method [¶0014-0015, ¶0018, ¶0025, ¶0027, ¶0039. See also rest of reference.].
However, Simonetti is silent in teaching wherein the first and second imaging sequences further differ with respect to at least one of: field of view, image resolution, repetition time, k-space sampling pattern, relaxation time weighting.
Moriguchi, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the first and second imaging sequences further differ with respect to at least one of: field of view, image resolution, repetition time, k-space sampling pattern, relaxation time weighting [See Methods section, “To avoid a prescan, one of the data sets may be acquired with full k-space data and the sensitivity profiles are created from the image reconstructed from the full data set.” Therefore, one of the pulse sequences for the Dixon method can be acquired with a different k-space sampling pattern. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Simonetti and Moriguchi because both references are in the field of combining Dixon methods with Sensitivity Encoding in MRI and because Moriguchi teaches it is known in the art to acquire a full k-space dataset for determining sensitivity profiles [Moriguchi – Methods section].
Regarding claim 9, the same reasons for rejection as claim 8 above also apply to claim 9. Claim 9 is merely the computer program product version of apparatus claim 8.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Simonetti, in view of Moriguchi, and in further view of Moriguchi II (“Dixon Techniques in Spiral Trajectories With Off Resonance Correction: A New Approach for Fat Signal Suppression Without Spatial-Spectral RF Pulses”).
Regarding claim 6, Simonetti and Moriguchi teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
However, both Simonetti and Moriguchi are silent in teaching wherein the deriving of at least one of the water map, the fat map, or the Bo map involves re-sampling of at least one of the first and second sets of MR signals to an identical, common k-space grid.
Moriguchi II, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the deriving of at least one of the water map, the fat map, or the Bo map involves re-sampling of at least one of the first and second sets of MR signals to an identical, common k-space grid [Page 920. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Simonetti and Moriguchi with the teachings of Moriguchi II because all references are in the field of Dixon MRI and because Moriguchi II teaches it is known in the art to re-grid non-cartesian trajectories (spiral) to a cartesian grid [Moriguchi II - Page 920. See also rest of reference.], where Moriguchi also teaches a spiral trajectory.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Simonetti, in view of Moriguchi, and in further view of Dahlqvist Leinhard (US 2011/0091090).
Regarding claim 7, Simonetti and Moriguchi teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
However, both Simonetti and Moriguchi are silent in wherein the deriving of at least one of the water map, the fat map, or the Bo map involves re-scaling of at least one of the first and second sets of MR signals.
Dahlqvist Leinhard, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the deriving of at least one of the water map, the fat map, or the Bo map involves re-scaling of at least one of the first and second sets of MR signals [¶0062. See also rest of reference.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Simonetti and Moriguchi with the teachings of Dahlqvist Leinhard because all references are in the field of water/fat separation in MRI and because Dahlqvist Leinhard teaches it is known in the art to rescale signal intensities based on the coil sensitivities [Dahlqvist Leinhard - ¶0062. See also rest of reference.], where Simonetti and Moriguchi both teach acquiring coil sensitivity profiles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2016/0124064 also teaches a method of performing Dixon MRI and acquiring coil sensitivity profiles during a pre-scan.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RISHI R PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-4385. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7 a.m. - 5 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/RISHI R PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
