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 09/05/2023 is/are compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Office Action Summary
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellner et al (Gibbs-Ringing Artifact Removal Based on Local Subvoxel-Shifts) in view of Novikov et al (US 2024/0233093 A1), further in view of Ropele et al (WO 2011/026923 A1).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellner et al (Gibbs-Ringing Artifact Removal Based on Local Subvoxel-Shifts) in view of Novikov et al (US 2024/0233093 A1), further in view of Ropele et al (WO 2011/026923 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 9, and 10, Kellner teaches an image processing apparatus, comprising:
processing circuitry configured (Page 1574, Introduction, 1st Paragraph: “In MRI, images are not acquired in image space, but are reconstructed from Fourier expansion coefficients in k-space […] In practice, only a finite number of expansion coefficients can be acquired. The corresponding truncation of Fourier space introduces artifacts if the expansion coefficients do not decay fast enough with increasing k […] The side lobes of the sinc cause oscillations (“ringing”) in the neighborhood of sharp edges”);
obtain, on a basis of the magnetic resonance image, a plurality of shift images resulting from shifting positions of pixels included in the magnetic resonance image by a plurality of mutually-different shift amounts (Page 1574, Methods, One-Dimensional Case, 1st Paragraph: “From this, a set of 2M images Is(x), where s = -M . . .M - 1, is created […] Image Is is a shifted version of the original image, where the integer s defines a shift by s / (2M) pixels”);
by determining, with respect to each of the pixels included in each of the plurality of shift images, a shift amount from a position of the pixel to a position where ringing artifacts will be reduced (Page 1575, Right Col., 1st Paragraph: “For each pixel x, the optimal shift which minimizes potential oscillations in the neighborhood must be found. The oscillations can be quantified with any oscillation-sensitive kernel”; and Page 1574, Right Col., 3rd Paragraph: “Finding the optimal subvoxel-shift for pixels in the neighborhood of sharp edges in the image can, therefore, minimize these oscillations”) and further performing a ringing correction to correct the ringing artifacts occurring in the shift images on the basis of the determined shift amounts (Page 1576, Right Col, 3rd Paragraph: “Now, we know the optimal shift for each image pixel which minimizes the oscillation measure and, hopefully, also the ringing artifact […] we finally have to go back to original grid, i.e., evaluating It(x)(
x
'
) at the noninteger position
x
'
= x – t(x) / (2M)” […] In this work, we decided to perform this final “back interpolation” by a simple linear interpolation”).
Kellner fails to teach processing circuitry configured to acquire a magnetic resonance image; generate a plurality of ringing-corrected images; and generate a combined image in which the plurality of ringing-corrected images are combined, by combining, while interleaving, pixels included in each of the plurality of ringing-corrected images. However, Novikov teaches generate a plurality of ringing-corrected images (Paragraph [0025]: “It is also possible to remove a PF Gibbs pattern from the image(s) by transforming the image(s) into a set of sub-sampled images, applying a Gibbs-ringing correction procedure to sub-sampled images, and recombining the Gibbs-corrected sub-sampled images. The Gibbs ringing correction can be performed based on performing sub-voxel shifts”).
Kellner teach processing magnetic resonance images to reduce Gibbs ringing artifacts by generating multiple sub-voxel-shifted images and determining, on a per-pixel basis, an optimal shift amount that minimizes oscillations (ringing), followed by performing ringing correction based on the determined shift amounts via back interpolation. Novikov further teaches transforming a magnetic resonance image into a set of sub-sampled images, applying a Gibbs-ringing correction procedure to the sub-sampled images, and recombining the resulting Gibbs-corrected images, where the Gibbs-ringing correction may be performed based on sub-voxel shifts and explicitly references local sub-voxel shift-based unringing techniques.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the pixel-wise sub-voxel shift-based ringing reduction technique of Kellner to the sub-sampled images of Novikov, because both references address the same problem of Gibbs ringing artifacts in magnetic resonance images and rely on sub-voxel shift-based processing to reduce oscillatory artifacts. Applying Kellner’s pixel-wise optimal shift determination and ringing correction to each of the sub-sampled images in Novikov represents a predictable use of known image processing techniques to improve image quality by reducing Gibbs ringing artifacts prior to recombination, and would have been expected to yield improved ringing suppression without changing the fundamental operation of either reference. This motivation for the combination of Kellner and Novikov is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Kellner and Novikov fails to teach processing circuitry configured to acquire a magnetic resonance image; and generate a combined image in which the plurality of ringing-corrected images are combined, by combining, while interleaving, pixels included in each of the plurality of ringing-corrected images. However, Ropele teach processing circuitry configured to acquire a magnetic resonance image (Page 5, lines 4-24: “a magnetic resonance imaging device for generating a magnetic resonance image of an object with a given pulse sequence is provided […] a receiver unit adapted for acquiring a first image of said object upon performing said pulse sequence […] the receiver unit adapted for acquiring a second image of said object upon performing said pulse sequence”); and generate a combined image in which the plurality of ringing-corrected images are combined, by combining, while interleaving, pixels included in each of the plurality of ringing-corrected images (Page 4, lines 28-30 – Page 5, lines 1: “merging said first image and said second image in the image domain in an interleaved fashion pixel by pixel (or in a multi-dimensional embodiment voxel by voxel”).
Kellner teach processing magnetic resonance images to reduce Gibbs ringing artifacts by generating a plurality of sub-voxel-shifted images and determining, on a per-pixel basis, an optimal shift amount that minimizes oscillations (ringing), followed by performing ringing correction based on the determined shift amounts via back interpolation. Novikov further teaches transforming a magnetic resonance image into a set of sub-sampled images, applying a Gibbs-ringing correction procedure to the sub-sampled images, and recombining the resulting Gibbs-corrected images, wherein the Gibbs-ringing correction may be performed based on sub-voxel shifts and explicitly references local sub-voxel shift-based unringing techniques. Ropele teaches combining multiple magnetic resonance images by merging pixels from the images in the image domain in an interleaved fashion on a pixel-by-pixel (voxel-by-voxel) basis.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the pixel-wise sub-voxel shift-based ringing reduction technique of Kellner to each of the sub-sampled images of Novikov, thereby generating a plurality of ringing-corrected images, and to further combine the plurality of ringing-corrected images using the pixel-by-pixel interleaving technique taught by Ropele. Thus, such a combination represents a predictable use of known image processing techniques to reduce Gibbs ringing artifacts while improving spatial sampling in magnetic resonance images, and would have been expected to yield improved image quality without altering the fundamental principles of operation of the combined references. This motivation for the combination of Kellner, Novikov and Ropele is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim(s) 2, Kellner as modified by Novikov and Ropele teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, where Ropele teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to obtain the plurality of shift images (Page 5, lines 16-20: “adapted for performing said pulse sequence with a field of view shifted by a part of a pixel width, wherein the receiver unit is adapted for acquiring a second image of said object upon performing said pulse sequence with the field of view shifted by the part of the pixel width (which may be denoted as a sub-pixel shift)”), where Kellner teaches by using the magnetic resonance image as a first shift image of which the shift amount is 0 (read as “original images Io(x)”) and generating a shift image resulting from shifting a position of a pixel sampling grid of the magnetic resonance image by a shift (read as “a set of 2M images Is(x)”) amount different from 0 as a second shift image (Page 1574, Methods, One-Dimensional Case, 1st Paragraph: “Let Io(x) be the originally measured, discrete image, and c0(k) its Fourier expansion coefficients. From this, a set of 2M images Is(x), where s = -M . . .M - 1, is created […] Image Is is a shifted version of the original image, where the integer s defines a shift by s / (2M) pixels”).
Regarding claim(s) 3, Kellner as modified by Novikov and Ropele teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, where Kellner teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to obtain the plurality of shift images, by generating a shift image resulting from shifting a position of a pixel sampling grid of the magnetic resonance image by a first shift amount different from 0 as a first shift image and generating another shift image resulting from shifting the position of the pixel sampling grid of the magnetic resonance image by a second shift amount in the direction opposite to the direction used for the first shift image, as a second shift image (Page 1574, Methods, One-Dimensional Case, 1st Paragraph: “Let Io(x) be the originally measured, discrete image, and c0(k) its Fourier expansion coefficients. From this, a set of 2M images Is(x), where s = -M . . .M - 1, is created […] Image Is is a shifted version of the original image, where the integer s defines a shift by s / (2M) pixels”, Examiner Note: Kellner disclose obtaining a plurality of shift images by shifting a pixel sampling grid of a MRI using sub-voxel shift amounts. In particular, Kellner teaches generating a first shift image using a non-zero shift amount and generating another shift image using a shift amount in the opposite direction, as evidenced by the use of both positive and negative sub-voxel shifts.).
Regarding claim(s) 4, Kellner as modified by Novikov and Ropele teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, where Kellner teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to obtain the plurality of shift images, by using the magnetic resonance image as a first shift image of which the shift amount is 0 (read as “original images Io(x)”), generating a shift image resulting from shifting a position of a pixel sampling grid of the magnetic resonance image by a first shift amount different from 0 as a second shift image (read as “a set of 2M images Is(x)”), and generating another shift image resulting from shifting the position of the pixel sampling grid of the magnetic resonance image by a second shift amount equal to the first shift amount in the direction opposite to the direction used for the second shift image, as a third shift (read as “where s = -M . . .M - 1”) image (Page 1574, Methods, One-Dimensional Case, 1st Paragraph: “Let Io(x) be the originally measured, discrete image, and c0(k) its Fourier expansion coefficients. From this, a set of 2M images Is(x), where s = -M . . .M - 1, is created […] Image Is is a shifted version of the original image, where the integer s defines a shift by s / (2M) pixels”, Examiner’s Note: Kellner disclose obtaining a plurality of shift images by using the original magnetic resonance image as a zero-shift image and by generating additional shifted images through shifting a pixel sampling grid by non-zero sub-voxel shift amounts. Kellner further teaches generating shifted images using equal-magnitude positive and negative sub-voxel shifts, thereby producing shift images corresponding to opposite shift directions.).
Regarding claim(s) 8, Kellner as modified by Novikov and Ropele teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate the combined image, by sorting the pixels included in the plurality of ringing-corrected images (where Novikov teaches in Paragraph [0025]: “It is also possible to remove a PF Gibbs pattern from the image(s) by transforming the image(s) into a set of sub-sampled images, applying a Gibbs-ringing correction procedure to sub-sampled images, and recombining the Gibbs-corrected sub-sampled images. The Gibbs ringing correction can be performed based on performing sub-voxel shifts”) according to an order of positions thereof within the magnetic resonance image (where Ropele teaches in Page 4, lines 28-30 – Page 5, lines 1: “merging said first image and said second image in the image domain in an interleaved fashion pixel by pixel (or in a multi-dimensional embodiment voxel by voxel”) and where Ropele teaches subsequently combining, while interleaving, the pixels in the sorted order (Page 4, lines 28-30 – Page 5, lines 1: “merging said first image and said second image in the image domain in an interleaved fashion pixel by pixel (or in a multi-dimensional embodiment voxel by voxel”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
Kim et al (US 9,207,301 B2) are relevant prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Kim discloses an apparatus for compensating for an artifact generated by a diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) technique, the apparatus comprising: a construction unit configured to construct a diffusion q-space matrix; a correction unit configured to correct an image shift in a phase encoding direction in the constructed diffusion q-space matrix; a reconstruction processing unit configured to reconstruct a q-space of a Diffusion Spectrum Imaging (DSI) technique based on the corrected image shift; and a tracking processing unit to process a DSI fiber tracking using the reconstructed q-space of the DSI.
Wang et al (US 2022/0065967 A1) are relevant prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. XXX discloses a method for medical image registration in k-space domain, the method comprising: receiving a first partial k-space dataset for an object and a second partial k-space dataset for the object; selecting the first partial k-space dataset as a reference; selecting feature for estimating a transformation matrix for transforming k-space data; estimating a transformation matrix based on the feature of entire or part of the first partial k-space dataset and the feature of the second partial k-space dataset corresponding to the entire or part of the first partial k-space dataset; correcting the second partial k-space dataset based on the transformation matrix; and obtaining the corrected second partial k-space dataset.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONGBONG NAH whose telephone number is (571) 272-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, ONEAL MISTRY can be reached on 313-446-4912. 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.
/JONGBONG NAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674