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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 25, 2023 and April 22, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 4-6, 16 and 20 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. The term “ high-order ” in claim s 4-6, 16 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ high-order ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the sake of examination, the examiner will interpret “high-order” as an order higher than 1. 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. Claim(s) 1-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Testud , Frederik, et al. "Single‐shot imaging with higher‐dimensional encoding using magnetic field monitoring and concomitant field correction." Magnetic resonance in medicine 73.3 (2015): 1340- 1357. . Regarding independent claim 1 , Testud discloses an image reconstruction system (abstract, “combined basis consisting of spherical harmonics and concomitant terms was proposed and used for encoding field calibration and image reconstruction;” page 1346, right column, “The CG reconstruction was implemented on a graphic processor unit (GPU)(NVIDIA Tesla C2050 GPU) allowing fast image reconstruction (39,40) as detailed in (41)”) , comprising: a memory configured to store magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data (page 1346, right column, “The CG reconstruction was implemented on a graphic processor unit (GPU)(NVIDIA Tesla C2050 GPU) allowing fast image reconstruction (39,40) as detailed in (41);” a processor executing a method requires there to be a memory which stores the data for input processing ; abstract, “A dynamic field camera was built for encoding field calibration. Concomitant fields of linear and nonlinear spatial encoding magnetic fields were analyzed;” page 1340, right column, “Single-shot magnetic resonance imaging allows image acquisition in less than 100ms , e.g. echo-planar imaging(EPI) (1), spiral (2), or other types of trajectories (3–5).Such short acquisition times are achieved by switching the linear spatial encoding magnetic fields (SEMs), commonly referred to as gradients, with large maximal amplitudes as fast as possible over an extended total readout time.” ) ; and a processor coupled to the memory (page 1346, right column, “The CG reconstruction was implemented on a graphic processor unit (GPU)(NVIDIA Tesla C2 050 GPU) allowing fast image reconstruction (39,40) as detailed in (41)”) and configured to: reconstruct a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) image based on the MRI data and using an analytic concomitant field model to reduce distortion or disturbance in the reconstructed MRI image (page 1346, left column, “Image reconstruction was performed using an iterative conjugate gradient (CG) method including all 16 trajectory coefficients similar to the reconstruction used for non-Cartesian trajectories (36);” page 1349, left column, “the image reconstructed with the trajectory k Y shows an almost artifact free image;” Figure 5, “(e) kY (basis set including nonspherical harmonic terms to account for concomitant field terms)”) . Regarding dependent claim 2 , the rejection of claim 1 is incorporate d herein. Additionally, Testud further discloses wherein the MRI data is image data (Figure 5(e); the 4D-RIO reconstruction is read as the MRI data; A 4D radial-in-out trajectory is an MRI technique combining 3D radial data acquisition and a special sampling pattern ; page 1344, le f t column, “ The 4D-RIO trajectory (24) simultaneously covers both the linear (k x, ky ) and quadratic (ka, kb) k-spaces with radial spokes, but with staggered timing such that the edge of (k x, k y )-space is reached concurrent to passing through the center of (ka, kb)-space, and vice-versa. ” ). Regarding dependent claim 3 , the rejection of claim 1 is incorporate d herein. Additionally, Testud further discloses wherein the MRI data is k-space data ( page 1344, left column, “The 4D-RIO trajectory (24) simultaneously covers both the linear (k x, ky ) and quadratic (ka, kb) k-spaces with radial spokes, but with staggered timing such that the edge of (k x, k y )-space is reached concurrent to passing through the center of (ka, kb)-space, and vice-versa ; ” Figure 5(e); the 4D-RIO reconstruction ). Regarding dependent claim 4 , the rejection of claim 1 is incorporate d herein. Additionally, Testud further discloses wherein to reconstruct the MRI image based on the MRI data and using the analytic concomitant field model the processor is configured to use high-order concomitant field terms along with linear Fourier terms of the MRI data to reconstruct the MRI image more accurately than without the high-order concomitant field terms to reconstruct the MRI image (abstract, “A dynamic field camera was built for encoding field calibration. Concomitant fields of linear and nonlinear spatial encoding magnetic fields were analyzed. A combined basis consisting of spherical harmonics and concomitant terms was proposed and used for encoding field calibration and image reconstruction ; ” linear and non-linear relate to high-order as in some are higher thn the other ) . Regarding dependent claim 5 , the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Testud further discloses wherein using the high-order concomitant field terms in the reconstruction of the MRI image causes a reduction in local blurring of the MRI image and corrects or reduces artifacts in the MRI image to reduce distortion or disturbance in the reconstructed MRI image (page 1344, left column, “The 4D-RIO trajectory (24) simultaneously covers both the linear ( kx , ky ) and quadratic (ka, kb) k-spaces with radial spokes, but with staggered timing such that the edge of ( kx , ky )-space is reached concurrent to passing through the center of (ka, kb)-space, and vice-versa;” Figure 5, a- d have more distortion/blue than e) . Regarding dependent claim 6 , the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Testud further discloses wherein the analytic concomitant field model identifies, uses and incorporates the high-order concomitant field terms in addition to the linear Fourier terms of the image data or the k-space data to reconstruct the MRI image (page 1344, left column, “The 4D-RIO trajectory (24) simultaneously covers both the linear ( kx , ky ) and quadratic (ka, kb) k-spaces with radial spokes, but with staggered timing such that the edge of ( kx , ky )-space is reached concurrent to passing through the center of (ka, kb)-space, and vice-versa;” page 1349, right column, “ n this article, reconstructed single-shot higher-dimensional images from 4D-RIO and NW-EPI are presented which use simultaneous linear and quadrupolar fields.”) . Regarding dependent claim 7 , the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Testud further discloses wherein the processor is configured to reconstruct the MRI image further based on one or more receiver coil sensitivities of a MRI scanner that is used to capture the MRI data ( page 1346, left column, “Image reconstruction was performed using an iterative conjugate gradient (CG) method including all 16 trajectory coefficients similar to the reconstruction used for non-Cartesian trajectories (36). The reconstruction was implemented in MATLAB. The coil sensitivities cn (r) and the B0(r) map of the imaged slices were acquired with a multiecho GRE sequence.” ) . Regarding dependent claim 8 , the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Testud further discloses wherein to reconstruct the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) image based on the MRI data (page 1346, left column, “Image reconstruction was performed using an iterative conjugate gradient (CG) method including all 16 trajectory coefficients similar to the reconstruction used for non-Cartesian trajectories (36).”) and using the analytic concomitant field model (page 1352, right column, “A fitting basis was constructed for encoding field calibration that combines real-valued spherical harmonics with analytically derived concomitant field terms. In this way, the most important concomitant field terms are treated as an integral part of the encoding”) , the processor is configured to: calculate or determine an image vector or matrix that represents the reconstructed MRI image using a conjugate gradient algorithm or an iterative solver on the MRI data to recover the MRI image without artifacts (page 1346, left column, “Image reconstruction was performed using an iterative conjugate gradient (CG) method including all 16 trajectory coefficients similar to the reconstruction used for non-Cartesian trajectories (36);” page 1346, right column, “The CG reconstruction was implemented on a graphic processor unit (GPU) (NVIDIA Tesla C2050 GPU) allowing fast image reconstruction (39,40) as detailed in (41). The number of CGiterations was chosen manually for each reconstruction, stopping when the best image quality was deemed to have been reached”) . Regarding dependent claim 11 , the rejection of claim 1 is incorporate d herein. Additionally, Testud further discloses further comprising: a display configured to output the reconstructed MRI image to a user (Figure 5 represents a variety of outputs to be displayed) ; wherein the processor is configured to: output, provide or render on the display the reconstructed MRI image to the user (Figure 5 represents a variety of outputs to be displayed; page 1346, right column, “The CG reconstruction was implemented on a graphic processor unit (GPU)(NVIDIA Tesla C2050 GPU) allowing fast image reconstruction (39,40) as detailed in (41)”) . 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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Testud as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of King, Kevin F., et al. "Concomitant gradient field effects in spiral scans." Magnetic Resonance in Medicine: An Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 41.1 (1999): 103-112. (hereinafter King) . Regarding dependent claim 9 , the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Testud further discloses further comprising: an MRI scanner configured to obtain the MRI data of a patient (page 1345, left column, “All experiments were performed on a modified 3T system (MAGNETOM Trio, a Tim System, Siemens AG, Healthcare Sector, Erlangen, Germany) fitted with transmit-array hardware (35).”) . Testud fails to explicitly disclose as further recited. However, King discloses wherein the processor is configured to: calculate spatial coordinates of a voxel of the MRI data in a physical coordinate system (PCS) including translating or rotating a location of the voxel in a reference coordinate system (RCS) to the PCS ( page 109, left column, “For an arbitrary slice plane, we define a read/phase/slice coordinate system or ‘‘logical’’ coordinate system to have axes X, Y, and Z ; ” page 109, right column, “ These coefficients depend only on the scan plane rotation matrix ” ) . Testud is directed toward “Images acquired with higher dimensional single-shot trajectories can exhibit strong artifacts and geometric distortions. In this work, the source of these artifacts is analyzed and a reliable correction strategy is derived (abstract) .” King is directed toward, “Maxwell’s equations imply that imaging gradients are accompanied by higher order spatially varying fields (concomitant fields) that can cause artifacts in MR imaging (abstract) ” and “Blurring caused by concomitant fields can be removed by variations of image reconstruction methods developed to correct for spatially dependent resonance offsets with nonrectangular k-space trajectories (abstract). ” As can be easily seen by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Testud and King are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of artifact prevention in MRI imaging. Further, King allows for blur reduction in the easiest manner in XYZ axes which may require transforming pixel coordinates to reflect the real world (page 109, left column, “For an arbitrary slice plane, we define a read/phase/slice coordinate system or ‘‘logical’’ coordinate system to have axes X, Y, and Z. A blurring correction is most easily applied in this XYZ coordinate system”). I t would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of King in order to allow for the easiest calculations possible, known to lower needs of processing power and processing time during artifact removal and image reconstruction. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Testud further in view of King as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Vannesjo , Signe J., et al. "Gradient system characterization by impulse response measurements with a dynamic field camera." Magnetic resonance in medicine 69.2 (2013): 583-593. (hereinafter Vannesjo ). Regarding dependent claim 10 , the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated herein. Additionally, King in the combination further discloses apply the analytic concomitant field model computed with distorted gradient waveforms and voxels' physical coordinates to the MRI data (page 109, left column, “For the general oblique case, concomitant field blurring is equivalent to a time-independent frequency offset fc(X, Y, Z)”… “The residual blurring artifacts that remain in Fig. 8b after the concomitant field correction are conjectured to be due to chemical shift and susceptibility resonance offsets.”) . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of King in order to allow for the most accurate outputs based on the distortions present in the waveforms and the physical locations of the MRI data. Having inaccurate data to process would then output an inaccurate image, leading to possible inaccurate diagnosis. Testud and King fail to explicitly disclose as further recited. However, Vannesjo discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: apply a convolution of inputted nominal gradient waveforms or field with a gradient impulse response function (GIRF) to determine predicted or distorted gradient waveforms produced by gradient coils of the MRI scanner (abstract, “Herein, a gradient chain is treated as a linear time invariant system, whose impulse response function is determined by measuring field responses to known gradient inputs. Triangular inputs are used to probe the system and response measurements are performed with a dynamic field camera consisting of NMR probes. In experiments on a whole-body MR system, it is shown that the proposed method yields impulse response functions of high temporal and spectral resolution;” page 584, right column, “In this work, it is proposed to determine comprehensive gradient impulse response functions using field observations with a dynamic field camera. Starting from LTI systems theory, a strategy is derived for obtaining a full GIRF from suitable combinations of input functions. The method is demonstrated by GIRF measurements on a 3 T whole-body human MRI system and validated by comparing measured field evolutions with GIRF-based predictions”… “Accordingly, the system response to any given input can be predicted based on the impulse response function.”) As noted above, Testud and King are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of MRI image analysis and artifact reduction. Further, Vannesjo is directed toward “This work demonstrates a fast, sensitive method of characterizing the dynamic performance of MR gradient systems. The accuracy of gradient time-courses is often compromised by field imperfections of various causes, including eddy currents and mechanical oscillations (abstract) ” and “in experiments on a whole-body MR system, it is shown that the proposed method yields impulse response functions of high temporal and spectral resolution (abstract) .” As can be easily seen by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Testud , King and Vannesjo are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of MRI image obtaining and analysis. Further, it is well known by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, when obtaining MRI data, there are often artifacts of inaccuracies due to the system not generating an entirely perfect waveform. If these inaccuracies were not accounted for, the images output would contain artifacts potentially leading to errors in diagnosis, or unclear areas which are of interest to a user. King allows for compensation of the inaccuracies of the system, by utilizing impulse response functions (abstract, page 584, left column, “net gradient impulse response function (GIRF) should hence incorporate all influences on the gradient waveform between the console and the magnet bore.”). These impulse response functions can be considered as methods of calibration of the machines inaccuracies. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Vannesjo to ensure images with less artifacts are output allowing for more accurate diagnosis. Claim(s) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Testud , and further in view of Vannesjo and King . Regarding independent claim 12 , Testud discloses A method for reconstructing a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) image (abstract, “combined basis consisting of spherical harmonics and concomitant terms was proposed and used for encoding field calibration and image reconstruction;” page 1352, left column, “GPU acceleration was also used for other magnetic resonance imaging reconstruction applications (39,40).”) , comprising: obtaining, by a processor, MRI data of a patient (page 1345, left column, “All experiments were performed on a modified 3T system (MAGNETOM Trio, a Tim System, Siemens AG, Healthcare Sector, Erlangen, Germany) fitted with transmit-array hardware (35) ; ” page 1346, left column, “ Image reconstruction was performed using an iterative conjugate gradient (CG) method including all 16 trajectory coefficients similar to the reconstruction used for non-Cartesian trajectories (36). The reconstruction was implemented in MATLAB”) ; providing, by the processor, the MRI image to a user (Figure 5 represents a variety of outputs to be displayed; page 1346, right column, “The CG reconstruction was implemented on a graphic processor unit (GPU)(NVIDIA Tesla C2050 GPU) allowing fast image reconstruction (39,40) as detailed in (41)”) . Testud fails to explicitly disclose as further recited. However, Vannesjo discloses applying a convolution of inputted nominal gradient waveforms with a gradient impulse response function (GIRF) to determine predicted or distorted gradient waveforms (abstract, “Herein, a gradient chain is treated as a linear time invariant system, whose impulse response function is determined by measuring field responses to known gradient inputs. Triangular inputs are used to probe the system and response measurements are performed with a dynamic field camera consisting of NMR probes. In experiments on a whole-body MR system, it is shown that the proposed method yields impulse response functions of high temporal and spectral resolution;” page 584, right column, “In this work, it is proposed to determine comprehensive gradient impulse response functions using field observations with a dynamic field camera. Starting from LTI systems theory, a strategy is derived for obtaining a full GIRF from suitable combinations of input functions. The method is demonstrated by GIRF measurements on a 3 T whole-body human MRI system and validated by comparing measured field evolutions with GIRF-based predictions”… “Accordingly, the system response to any given input can be predicted based on the impulse response function.”) . Testud is directed toward “Images acquired with higher dimensional single-shot trajectories can exhibit strong artifacts and geometric distortions. In this work, the source of these artifacts is analyzed and a reliable correction strategy is derived (abstract) .” Vannesjo is directed toward “This work demonstrates a fast, sensitive method of characterizing the dynamic performance of MR gradient systems. The accuracy of gradient time-courses is often compromised by field imperfections of various causes, including eddy currents and mechanical oscillations (abstract) ” and “in experiments on a whole-body MR system, it is shown that the proposed method yields impulse response functions of high temporal and spectral resolution (abstract) .” As can be easily seen by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Testud and Vannesjo are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of MRI image obtaining and analysis. Further, it is well known by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, when obtaining MRI data, there are often artifacts of inaccuracies due to the system not generating an entirely perfect waveform. If these inaccuracies were not accounted for, the images output would contain artifacts potentially leading to errors in diagnosis, or unclear areas which are of interest to a user. King allows for compensation of the inaccuracies of the system, by utilizing impulse response functions (abstract, page 584, left column, “net gradient impulse response function (GIRF) should hence incorporate all influences on the gradient waveform between the console and the magnet bore.”). These impulse response functions can be considered as methods of calibration of the machines inaccuracies. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Vannesjo to ensure images with less artifacts are output allowing for more accurate diagnosis. Testud and Vannesjo in the combination fail to explicitly disclose as further recited. However, King discloses determining, by the processor, spatial coordinates of voxels of the M RI data in a physical coordinate system (PCS) (page 109, left column, “For an arbitrary slice plane, we define a read/phase/slice coordinate system or ‘‘logical’’ coordinate system to have axes X, Y, and Z.”) ; applying the analytic concomitant field model computed with distorted gradient waveforms and voxels' physical coordinates to the MRI data (page 109, left column, “For the general oblique case, concomitant field blurring is equivalent to a time-independent frequency offset fc(X, Y, Z)”… “The residual blurring artifacts that remain in Fig. 8b after the concomitant field correction are conjectured to be due to chemical shift and susceptibility resonance offsets.”) As noted above, Testud and Vannesjo are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of MRI image analysis and correction. Further, Testud is directed toward “Images acquired with higher dimensional single-shot trajectories can exhibit strong artifacts and geometric distortions. In this work, the source of these artifacts is analyzed and a reliable correction strategy is derived (abstract) .” King is directed toward, “Maxwell’s equations imply that imaging gradients are accompanied by higher order spatially varying fields (concomitant fields) that can cause artifacts in MR imaging (abstract) ” and “Blurring caused by concomitant fields can be removed by variations of image reconstruction methods developed to correct for spatially dependent resonance offsets with nonrectangular k-space trajectories (abstract). ” As can be easily seen by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Testud , Vannesjo and King are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of artifact prevention in MRI imaging. Further, King allows for blur reduction in the easiest manner in XYZ axes (page 109, left column, “For an arbitrary slice plane, we define a read/phase/slice coordinate system or ‘‘logical’’ coordinate system to have axes X, Y, and Z. A blurring correction is most easily applied in this XYZ coordinate system”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of King in order to allow for the easiest calculations possible, known to lower needs of processing power and processing time during artifact removal and image reconstruction. Regarding dependent claim 13 , the rejection of claim 1 2 is incorporate d herein. Additionally, Testud in the combination further discloses wherein the MRI data is image data (Figure 5(e); the 4D-RIO reconstruction is read as the MRI data; A 4D radial-in-out trajectory is an MRI technique combining 3D radial data acquisition and a special sampling pattern ; page 1344, left column, “ The 4D-RIO trajectory (24) simultaneously covers both the linear (k x, ky ) and quadratic (ka, kb) k-spaces with radial spokes, but with staggered timing such that the edge of (k x, k y )-space is reached concurrent to passing through the center of (ka, kb)-space, and vice-versa. ” ). Regarding dependent claim 14 , the rejection of claim 1 2 is incorporate d herein. Additionally, Testud in the combination further discloses wherein the MRI data is k-space data ( page 1344, left column, “The 4D-RIO trajectory (24) simultaneously covers both the lin ear (k x, ky ) and quadratic (ka, kb) k-spaces with radial spokes, but with staggered timing such that the edge of (k x, k y )-space is reached concurrent to passing through the center of (ka, kb)-space, and vice-versa;” Figure 5(e); the 4D-RIO reconstruction). Regarding dependent claim 15 , the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated herein. Additionally, King in the combination further discloses wherein determining the spatial coordinates of the voxels of the MRI data in the PCS includes translating or rotating location of voxels in RCS to the PCS (page 109, left column, “For an arbitrary slice plane, we define a read/phase/slice coordinate system or ‘‘logical’’ coordinate system to have axes X, Y, and Z;” page 109, right column, “These coefficients depend only on the scan plane rotation matrix”) . King allows for blur reduction in the easiest manner in XYZ axes which may require transforming pixel coordinates to reflect the real world (page 109, left column, “For an arbitrary slice plane, we define a read/phase/slice coordinate system or ‘‘logical’’ coordinate system to have axes X, Y, and Z. A blurring correction is most easily applied in this XYZ coordinate system”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of King in order to allow for the easiest calculations possible, known to lower needs of processing power and processing time during artifact removal and image reconstruction. Regarding dependent claim 16 , the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Testud in the combination further discloses wherein the analytic concomitant field model identifies, uses and incorporate s high-order concomitant field terms in addition to linear Fourier terms of the MRI da ta to reconstruct the MRI image (page 1344, left column, “The 4D-RIO trajectory (24) simultaneously covers both the linear ( kx , ky ) and quadratic (ka, kb) k-spaces with radial spokes, but with staggered timing such that the edge of ( kx , ky )-space is reached concurrent to passing through the center of (ka, kb)-space, and vice-versa;” page 1349, right column, “ i n this article, reconstructed single-shot higher-dimensional images from 4D-RIO and NW-EPI are presented which use simultaneous linear and quadrupolar fields.”) . Regarding dependent claim 1 7 , the rejection of claim 1 2 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Testud in the combination further discloses wherein reconstructing the MRI image is further based on one or more receiver coil sensitivities of a MRI scanner that is used to capture the MRI data (page 1346, left column, “Image reconstruction was performed using an iterative conjugate gradient (CG) method including all 16 trajectory coefficients similar to the reconstruction used for non-Cartesian trajectories (36). The reconstruction was implemented in MATLAB. The coil sensitivities cn (r) and the B0(r) map of the imaged slice s were acquired with a multiecho GRE sequence.”) . Regarding independent claim 18 , Testud discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer readable instructions, which when executed by a processor (page 1346, right column, “The CG reconstruction was implemented on a graphic processor unit (GPU) (NVIDIA Tesla C2050 GPU) allowing fast image reconstruction (39,40) as detailed in (41).”) , cause the processor to perform operations comprising: obtaining image data or k-space data of a patient (Figure 5(e); the 4D-RIO reconstruction is read as the MRI data; A 4D radial-in-out trajectory is an MRI technique combining 3D radial data acquisition and a special sampling pattern; page 1344, left column, “The 4D-RIO trajectory (24) simultaneously covers both the linear (k x, ky ) and quadratic (ka, kb) k-spaces with radial spokes, but with staggered timing such that the edge of (k x, k y )-space is reached concurrent to passing through the center of (ka, kb)-space, and vice-versa.”) ; providing a MRI image to a user (Figure 5 represents a variety of outputs to be displayed; page 1346, right column, “The CG reconstruction was implemented on a graphic processor unit (GPU)(NVIDIA Tesla C2050 GPU) allowing fast image reconstruction (39,40) as detailed in (41)”) . Testud fails to expli citly disclose as further recited. However, Vannesjo discloses applying a convolution of inputted nominal gradient field waveforms with a gradient impulse response function (GIRF) to determine predicted or distorted gradient waveforms ( abstract, “Herein, a gradient chain is treated as a linear time invariant system, whose impulse response function is determined by measuring field responses to known gradient inputs. Triangular inputs are used to probe the system and response measurements are performed with a dynamic field camera consisting of NMR probes. In experiments on a whole-body MR system, it is shown that the proposed method yields impulse response functions of high temporal and spectral resolution;” page 584, right column, “In this work, it is proposed to determine comprehensive gradient impulse response functions using field observations with a dynamic field camera. Starting from LTI systems theory, a strategy is derived for obtaining a full GIRF from suitable combinations of input functions. The method is demonstrated by GIRF measurements on a 3 T whole-body human MRI system and validated by comparing measured field evolutions with GIRF-based predictions”… “Accordingly, the system response to any given input can be predicted based on the impulse response function.” ) . Testud is directed toward “Images acquired with higher dimensional single-shot trajectories can exhibit strong artifacts and geometric distortions. In this work, the source of these artifacts is analyzed and a reliable correction strategy is derived (abstract) .” Vannesjo is directed toward “This work demonstrates a fast, sensitive method of characterizing the dynamic performance of MR gradient systems. The accuracy of gradient time-courses is often compromised by field imperfections of various causes, including eddy currents and mechanical oscillations (abstract) ” and “in experiments on a whole-body MR system, it is shown that the proposed method yields impulse response functions of high temporal and spectral resolution (abstract) .” As can be easily seen by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Testud and Vannesjo are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of MRI image obtaining and analysis. Further, it is well known by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, when obtaining MRI data, there are often artifacts of inaccuracies due to the system not generating an entirely perfect waveform. If these inaccuracies were not accounted for, the images output would contain artifacts potentially leading to errors in diagnosis, or unclear areas which are of interest to a user. King allows for compensation of the inaccuracies of the system, by utilizing impulse response functions (abstract, page 584, left column, “net gradient impulse response function (GIRF) should hence incorporate all influences on the gradient waveform between the console and the magnet bore.”). These impulse response functions can be considered as methods of calibration of the machines inaccuracies. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Vannesjo to ensure images with less artifacts are output allowing for more accurate diagnosis. Testud and Vannesjo in the combination as a whole fail to explicitly disclose as further recited. However, King discloses calculating spatial coordinates of voxels in a physical coordinate system (PCS) (page 109, left column, “For an arbitrary slice plane, we define a read/p hase/slice coordinate system or ‘‘logical’’ coordinate system to have axes X, Y, and Z.”) ; applying the analytic concomitant field model computed with distorted gradient waveforms and voxels' physical coordinates to the image data or the k-space data ( page 109, left column, “For the general oblique case, concomitant field blurring is equivalent to a time-independent frequency offset fc(X, Y, Z)”… “The residual blurring artifacts that remain in Fig. 8b after the concomitant field correction are conjectured to be due to chemical shift and susceptibility resonance offsets.” ) As noted above, Testud and Vannesjo are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of MRI image analysis and correction. Further, Testud is directed toward “Images acquired with higher dimensional single-shot trajectories can exhibit strong artifacts and geometric distortions. In this work, the source of these artifacts is analyzed and a reliable correction strategy is derived (abstract) .” King is directed toward, “Maxwell’s equations imply that imaging gradients are accompanied by higher order spatially varying fields (concomitant fields) that can cause artifacts in MR imaging (abstract) ” and “Blurring caused by concomitant fields can be removed by variations of image reconstruction methods developed to correct for spatially dependent resonance offsets with nonrectangular k-space trajectories (abstract). ” As can be easily seen by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Testud , Vannesjo and King are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of artifact prevention in MRI imaging. Further, King allows for blur reduction in the easiest manner in XYZ axes (page 109, left column, “For an arbitrary slice plane, we define a read/phase/slice coordinate system or ‘‘logical’’ coordinate system to have axes X, Y, and Z. A blurring correction is most easily applied in this XYZ coordinate system”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of King in order to allow for the easiest calculations possible, known to lower needs of processing power and processing time during artifact removal and image reconstruction. Regarding dependent claim 19 , the rejection of claim 1 8 is incorporated herein. Additionally, King in the combination further discloses wherein to calculate the spatial coordinates of the voxels in the PCS the operations include rotating or translating a location of the voxels in a matrix or reference coordinate system (RCS) to the PCS ( page 109, left column, “For an arbitrary slice plane, we define a read/phase/slice coordinate system or ‘‘logical’’ coordinate system to have axes X, Y, and Z;” page 109, right column, “These coefficients depend only on the scan plane rotation matrix” ) . King allows for blur reduction in the easiest manner in XYZ axes which may require transforming pixel coordinates to reflect the real world (page 109, left column, “For an arbitrary slice plane, we define a read/phase/slice coordinate system or ‘‘logical’’ coordinate system to have axes X, Y, and Z. A blurring correction is most easily applied in this XYZ coordinate system”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of King in order to allow for the easiest calculations possible, known to lower needs of processing power and processing time during artifact removal and image reconstruction. Regarding dependent claim 20 , the rejection of claim 1 8 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Testud in the combination further discloses wherein the analytic concomitant field model identifies, uses and incorporate s high-order concomitant field terms in addition to linear Fourier terms of the image data or the k-space data to re construct the MRI image (page 1344, left column, “The 4D-RIO trajectory (24) simultaneously covers both the linear ( kx , ky ) and quadratic (ka, kb) k-spaces with radial spokes, but with staggered timing such that the edge of ( kx , ky )-space is reached concurrent to passing through the center of (ka, kb)-space, and vice-versa;” page 1349, right column, “ i n this article, reconstructed single-shot higher-dimensional images from 4D-RIO and NW-EPI are presented which use simultaneous linear and quadrupolar fields.”) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : U . S . Patent No. 8 , 384 , 383 discloses, “ A method for reconstructing a sequence of magnetic resonance (MR) images of an object under investigation (abstract) ” U . S . Patent No. 10 , 353 , 039 discloses, “ Efficient encoding of signals in an MRI image is achieved through a combination of parallel receiver coils, and nonlinear gradient encoding that varies dynamically in such a manner as to impose a unique phase/frequency time varying signal on each pixel in the field of view (abstract) . ” Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Courtney J. Nelson whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3956 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT John Villecco can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-7319 . 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. /COURTNEY JOAN NELSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661