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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/440,488, filed January 1, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on 01/23/2024 was reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The 19-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Setsompop et al. (US 2011/0254548).
Consider Claim 1, Setsompop discloses “A method for simultaneous multislice (SMS) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquisition and image reconstruction” (Setsompop, Abstract) “comprising:(a) using an MRI apparatus, simultaneously i) exciting multiple imaging slices with a phase modulation strategy used to distribute the image content over an extended phase-encoding field of view (FOV)” (Setsompop, Paragraph [0034], where contemporaneous phase encoding field of view (FOV) is disclosed) “and ii) acquiring data from the multiple slices using a sampling strategy comprising a k-space under-sampling pattern over an extended phase-encoding FOV k-space matrix” (Setsompop, Paragraph [0010] discloses “to achieve a complete spatial encoding of the received MR signals, for example, by combining the simultaneously acquired data received from each of the separate coils. Parallel MRI techniques allow an undersampling of k-space by reducing the number of acquired phase-encoded k-space sampling lines, while keeping the maximal extent covered in k-space fixed”); and (b) reconstructing images comprising the multiple slices over the extended phase- encoded FOV using an image reconstruction technique (Setsompop, Paragraph [0082] and Fig. 7 further disclose “an exemplary method for reconstructing a plurality of images from image data simultaneously acquired from multiple slice locations”). Please note that various embodiments of Setsompop have been applied for mapping the claim limitations. Accordingly, before the effective date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the various embodiments of Setsompop to arrive at the limitations of Claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the regression algorithm taught by Gebauer for the calculation method of Han, and the results would have been predictable as disclosed in the Han Abstract (“The conventional deep learning-based method for this problem is to train a convolutional neural network (CNN), which takes the eye image as the input and gives the pupil center as a regression result”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the above-described embodiments of Setsompop in order to reduce the acquisition time required for an MRI image, comparing to a conventional k-space data acquisition, by obtaining under-sampled k-space data and still reconstruct an MRI image of a patient, (Setsompop, Paragraph [0010]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine embodiments of Setsompop to obtain Claim 1.
Consider Claim 5, Setsompop discloses “The method of claim 1 wherein excitation phase modulation is used to shift slices uniformly or non-uniformly over an extended FOV” (Setsompop, Paragraph [0034] discloses “signal information for every other slice location is shifted by a percentage of the imaging FOV”).
Consider Claim 6, Setsompop discloses “The method of claim 1 wherein an optimized phase modulation is applied to each line of k-space data to maximize a metric over the extended phase-encoding FOV reconstruction” (Setsompop, Paragraph [0021], where modulation of the phase of the RF excitations is disclosed).
Claims 2-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Setsompop et al. (US 2011/0254548) in view of Rich et al. (“CArtesian sampling with Variable density and Adjustable temporal resolution (CAVA)” - IDS).
Consider Claim 2, Setsompop does not explicitly disclose “The method of claim 1 wherein the sampling strategy uses Cartesian variable density and adjustable temporal resolution (CAVA) as a spatial-temporal k-space sampling strategy.” However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Rich discloses “The proposed method, called CArtesian sampling with Variable density and Adjustable temporal resolution (CAVA), begins by producing a sequence of phase encoding indices based on the golden ratio increment. Then, variable density is introduced by nonlinear stretching of the indices.” (Rich, Page 1: Theory and Methods).
Accordingly, before the effective date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Setsompop with the teachings of Rich to use CAVA as a sampling strategy. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined Setsompop and Rich to use CAVA for k-space sampling to provide an avenue to adjust the temporal resolution of phase contrast MRI (Rich, Page 1: Conclusion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Setsompop and Rich to obtain the invention in Claim 2.
Consider Claim 3, the combination of Setsompop and Rich discloses “The method of claim 1 wherein the sampling strategy uses a uniform under-sampling pattern as a k-space sampling strategy” (As disclosed in analysis of Claim 1, Setsompop discloses k-space under-sampling pattern. Rich in Page 3, last paragraph, discloses sampling patterns to be re-binned to yield different temporal resolutions without sacrificing the uniformity of sampling). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Setsompop and Rich references presented in the rejection of Claim 2, apply to Claim 3 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 3 is met by Setsompop and Rich.
Consider Claim 4, the combination of Setsompop and Rich discloses “The method of claim 1 wherein the sampling strategy uses a variable density Poisson disk strategy or other variable density strategy is used as a spatial-temporal sampling strategy” (emphasis added) (As disclosed in analysis of Claim 2, Rich, in Page 1: Theory and Methods, discloses sampling strategy uses Cartesian variable density and adjustable temporal resolution (CAVA)). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Setsompop and Rich references presented in the rejection of Claim 2, apply to Claim 4 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 4 is met by Setsompop and Rich.
Consider Claim 7, the combination of Setsompop and Rich discloses “The method of claim 1 wherein the extended phase-encoding FOV is a non-integer multiple of the number of excited slices” (Rich, Page 1: Theory and Methods, “variable density is introduced by nonlinear stretching of the indices. Finally, the elements of the resulting sequence are rounded-up to the nearest integer”, therefore, non-integer). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Setsompop and Rich references presented in the rejection of Claim 2, apply to Claim 7 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 7 is met by Setsompop and Rich.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Setsompop et al. (US 2011/0254548) in view of Zhao et al. (US 2022/0244333 w/ uncommon named inventors: Ahmad and Potter).
Consider Claim 8, Setsompop does not explicitly disclose “The method of claim 1 wherein the image reconstruction technique is high-dimensional fast convolutional framework (HICU) image reconstruction.” However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Zhao discloses “systems and methods for a computational procedure for accelerated, calibrationless magnetic resonance image (CI-MRI) reconstruction that is fast, memory efficient, and scales to high dimensional imaging. The computational procedure, High-dimensional fast ConvolUtional framework (HICU)” (Zhao, Paragraph [0008]).
Accordingly, before the effective date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Setsompop with the teachings of Zhao to use the image reconstruction technique is high-dimensional fast convolutional framework (HICU) image reconstruction. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the Setsompop and Zhao references to provide fast, memory efficient recovery of unsampled k-space points (Zhao, Paragraph [0008]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Setsompop and Zhao to obtain the invention in Claim 8.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Setsompop et al. (US 2011/0254548) in view of Salerno et al. (US 2018/0306880).
Consider Claim 9, although Setsompop discloses image domain based parallel reconstruction (Setsompop, Paragraph [0083], discloses image domain based parallel reconstruction), it does not explicitly disclose “The method of claim 1 wherein the image reconstruction technique is performed using parallel imaging reconstruction”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Salerno discloses using reconstruction technique by parallel imaging (Salerno, Paragraph [0059]).
Accordingly, before the effective date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Setsompop with the teachings of Salerno to use a reconstruction technique of parallel imaging. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the Setsompop and Salerno references to remove aliasing patterns in the reconstructed images (Salerno, Paragraph [0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Setsompop and Salerno to obtain the invention in Claim 9.
Consider Claim 10, Setsompop does not explicitly disclose “The method of claim 1, wherein the image reconstruction technique is performed using a compressed-sensing-based reconstruction.” However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Salerno discloses reconstruction technique using a compressed sensing-based reconstruction (Salerno, Paragraph [0059]).
Accordingly, before the effective date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Setsompop with the teachings of Salerno to use a reconstruction technique of compressed sensing-based reconstruction. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the Setsompop and Salerno references to remove aliasing patterns in the reconstructed images (Salerno, Paragraph [0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Setsompop and Salerno to obtain the invention in Claim 10.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Setsompop et al. (US 2011/0254548) in view of Schlemper et al. (US 2020/0294287).
Consider Claim 11, Setsompop does not explicitly disclose “The method of claim 1 wherein the image reconstruction technique is performed using a machine-learning-based reconstruction”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Schlemper discloses use of machine learning for reconstruction of MRI images (Schlemper, Paragraph [0002]).
Accordingly, before the effective date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Setsompop with the teachings of Schlemper to perform image reconstruction using machine learning algorithm. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the Setsompop and Schlemper references to create a robust and automatic reconstruction techniques using a machine learning algorithm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Setsompop and Schlemper to obtain the invention in Claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Setsompop et al. (US 2011/0254548) in view of Bo Zhao et al. (“Improved Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting Reconstruction with Low-Rank and Subspace Modeling”).
Consider Claim 12, Setsompop does not explicitly disclose “The method of claim 1 wherein the image reconstruction technique is performed using a low-rank subspace reconstruction”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Bo Zhao proposes a reconstruction method that enforces low-rank constraint to capture spatiotemporal correlation within MRF time-series images (Bo Zhao, page 2, last paragraph and page 3, first paragraph).
Accordingly, before the effective date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Setsompop with the teachings of Bo Zhao to perform image reconstruction technique is performed using a low-rank subspace reconstruction. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the Setsompop and Bo Zhao references to introduce “a constrained imaging method based on low-rank and subspace modeling to improve the accuracy and speed of MR Fingerprinting (MRF)” (Bo Zhao, Page 1, Abstract: Purpose). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Setsompop and Bo Zhao to obtain the invention in Claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the cited prior art references, alone or in combination, provides a motivation to teach “(a) the SMS acquisition uses Cartesian sampling with variable density and adjustable temporal resolution (CAVA) spatiotemporal sampling and samples in a superposition of multiple linear-phase-modulated k-space with an extended field of view, thereby avoiding abrupt image content change; and (b) the image reconstruction is high-dimensional fast convolutional framework (HICU) image reconstruction.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion and Contact Information
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Arberet et al. (US 11,062,488).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Siamak HARANDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 - 6:00 ET.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571)272-3382. 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.
/Siamak Harandi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662