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 6-8 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.
Claims 6-8 recites the limitation "the first slice image". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this term is the same or different from “the plurality of first slice images”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nitta (US 2013/0154646).
Regarding claim 1, Nitta teaches a magnetic resonance imaging support method comprising:
acquiring, by performing a scout scan on a subject, a plurality of first slice images corresponding to different slice positions, the plurality of first slice images corresponding to either sagittal planes or coronal planes [¶0046, wherein a plurality of two-dimensional MR images (in the reading direction and the phase encode direction) are used to acquire three-dimensional image data. As seen in Fig. 4, the reading direction is the same as the coronal plane. See also rest of reference.];
generating a second slice image corresponding to an axial plane by performing multi-planar reconstruction based on the plurality of first slice images [¶0046 and ¶0099, wherein MPR is performed to create the three-dimensional image data. See also rest of reference.];
determining a position corresponding to a specific part of the subject based on the second slice image [See Fig. 3, see step S102 and S105. See also rest of reference.];
determining a range to be scanned in a main scan based on the plurality of first slice images at the determined position [See Fig. 3, see step S102 and S105. See also rest of reference.]; and
performing a scan on the subject in the determined range [See Fig. 3, see step S106 and S111. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 2, Nitta further teaches wherein the determining the range to be scanned in the main scan includes determining a start position and an end position of the scan in the main scan [See upper end position and lower end position. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Nitta further teaches wherein the determining the range to be scanned in the main scan includes determining at least one selected from the number of and positions of a plurality of sub-scans included in the main scan [¶0090, see number of imaging and/or imaging interval. See Fig. 9 and corresponding description. See also multi-slice imaging. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 4, Nitta further teaches wherein the determining the range to be scanned in the main scan includes determining includes determining at least one selected from the number of and the positions of the plurality of sub-scans based on a size of a set field of view (FOV) [¶0090, see number of imaging and/or imaging interval. See Fig. 9 and corresponding description. See also multi-slice imaging. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 9, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 also apply to claim 9. Claim 9 is merely the apparatus version of method claim 1.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Nitta, in view of Shinoda (US 2016/0155229).
Regarding claim 5, Nitta teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Nitta further teaches wherein the generating the second slice image and determining the position corresponding to the specific part of the subject includes determining the position corresponding to the specific part of the subject based on the second slice image [See Fig. 3, see step S102 and S105. See also rest of reference.].
However, Nitta is silent in teaching wherein the generating the second slice image includes generating a plurality of the second slice images.
Shinoda, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the generating the second slice image includes generating a plurality of the second slice images, and determining the position corresponding to the specific part of the subject includes determining the position corresponding to the specific part of the subject based on the plurality of the second slice images [¶0056-0058. See also ¶0044. 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 Nitta and Shinoda because both references are in the field of acquiring scout images in MRI and MPR and because Shinoda teaches it is known in the art to acquire multiple cross-sectional images when performing MPR [Shinoda - ¶0056-0058. See also ¶0044. See also rest of reference.].
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Nitta, in view of Darrow (US 2013/0279779).
Regarding claim 6, Nitta teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Nitta further teaches wherein the determining the range to be scanned in the main scan includes determining the range to be scanned in the main scan based on a position of a cuboid region in the first slice image corresponding to the plane at the determined position [¶0046, wherein a plurality of two-dimensional MR images (in the reading direction and the phase encode direction) are used to acquire three-dimensional image data. As seen in Fig. 4, the reading direction is the same as the coronal plane. See Fig. 3, see step S102 and S105. See cuboid region. See also rest of reference.].
However, Nitta is silent in teaching a position of a head top or a head center in the first slice image corresponding to the sagittal plane.
Darrow, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the determining the range to be scanned in the main scan includes determining the range to be scanned in the main scan based on a position of a head top or a head center in the first slice image corresponding to the sagittal plane at the determined position [¶0070-0072, ¶0079. 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 Nitta and Darrow because both references are in the field of acquiring scout images in MRI and because Darrow teaches it is known in the art to acquire positions of a head when the purpose of the examination is related to the head [Darrow - ¶0070-0072, ¶0079. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 7, Nitta teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Nitta further teaches wherein the determining the range to be scanned in the main scan includes determining the range to be scanned in the main scan based on a position of a cuboid region in the first slice image corresponding to the coronal plane at the determined position [¶0046, wherein a plurality of two-dimensional MR images (in the reading direction and the phase encode direction) are used to acquire three-dimensional image data. As seen in Fig. 4, the reading direction is the same as the coronal plane. See Fig. 3, see step S102 and S105. See cuboid region. See also rest of reference.].
However, Nitta is silent in teaching a position of a knee center.
Darrow, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the determining the range to be scanned in the main scan includes determining the range to be scanned in the main scan based on a position of a knee center in the first slice image corresponding to the coronal plane at the determined position [¶0070-0075, ¶0079. 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 Nitta and Darrow because both references are in the field of acquiring scout images in MRI and because Darrow teaches it is known in the art to acquire positions of a knee when the purpose of the examination is related to the knee [Darrow - ¶0070-0075, ¶0079. See also rest of reference.].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Nitta, in view of Fuchigami (US 2025/0308096).
Regarding claim 8, Nitta teaches the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends from.
Nitta further teaches wherein the determining the range to be scanned in the main scan includes determining the range to be scanned in the main scan based on a position of cuboid region in the first slice image corresponding to at least one of the sagittal plane and the coronal plane at the determined position [¶0046, wherein a plurality of two-dimensional MR images (in the reading direction and the phase encode direction) are used to acquire three-dimensional image data. As seen in Fig. 4, the reading direction is the same as the coronal plane. See Fig. 3, see step S102 and S105. See cuboid region. See also rest of reference.].
However, Nitta is silent in teaching a position of spine.
Fuchigami, which is also in the field of MRI, teaches wherein the determining the range to be scanned in the main scan includes determining the range to be scanned in the main scan based on a position of spine in the first slice image corresponding to at least one of the sagittal plane and the coronal plane at the determined position [¶0005, ¶0054-0055, ¶0083. 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 Nitta and Fuchigama because both references are in the field of acquiring scout images in MRI and because Fuchigama teaches it is known in the art to acquire positions of a spine when the purpose of the examination is related to the spine [Fuchigama - ¶0005, ¶0054-0055, ¶0083. See also rest of reference.].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2021/0080531 teaches acquiring localizer/scout images in the coronal or sagittal phase for determining scan coverage.
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
Prosecution Insights