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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: i) figures 1 and 10 include blurry illegible texts; and ii) figures 1A-1C should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated, according to the applicant’s description. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1- 8 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.
Limitations of claim 1 render the claim indefinite because:
i) The limitation “the masking-related procedure” lacks antecedent basis and is further unclear of which masking-related procedures are referred to.
ii) The limitation “demonstrating a robust reconstruction” is unclear and confusing, as there are no standards of thresholds provided in the applicant’s disclosure to determine whether demonstrated reconstruction is robust or not. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitations would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Please amend the claim for clarification.
Limitations of claim 5 render the claim indefinite because:
iii) Limitations “the singular value decomposition (SVD)” and “the singular vector matrix V” lack antecedent basis.
iv) The limitation “exhibit strong linear dependencies” is unclear and confusing, as there are no standards of thresholds provided in the applicant’s disclosure to determine whether exhibited linear dependencies are strong or not. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitations would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Please amend the claim for clarification.
v) The limitation “performing the singular value decomposition (SVD), the singular vector matrix V with signal/null-space bases of A can be obtained” is unclear and confusing, as there appears to be a grammatical error. Is the limitation describing that a matrix V and A are obtained by the SVD? Or that V and A are obtained separately from the SVD? Please amend the claim for clarification.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art of record does not disclose the subject matter recited in claims 1-8, however, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). These claims would be allowable if amended to overcome the 112(b) rejection. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, Uecker et al. (“ESPIRIT – an eigenvalue approach to autocalibrating parallel MRI: where SENSE meets GRAPPA”) discloses:
extracting null-subspace bases of a calibration matrix from k-space coil calibration data to directly calculate image-domain spatial null maps (SNMs) (see p991 section “GRAPPA”, extracting k-space null-space vectors of a calibration matrix; and see p993, “Sensitivity maps as an eigenvalue problem”, sensitivity maps in image domain);
reconstructing multi-channel images by solving an image-domain nulling system formed by SNMs that contain both coil sensitivity and finite image support information (see p991 “Calibration matrix and null-space reconstruction”, MRI reconstruction from multiple channels),
However, Uecker does not disclose: thus circumventing the masking-related procedure and demonstrating a robust reconstruction (Uecker discloses utilizing a mask).
For purposes of examining, the limitation “finite image support information” is considered “information [is] related to finite boundary of the object within the field of view”, as described in the applicant’s specification para [38].
Regarding claim 5, Uecker discloses:
constructing a block-wise Hankel calibration matrix A using central consecutive fully-sampled k-space lines within the multi-channel k-space data, in the matrix the column entries (i.e., vectorized k-space blocks) exhibit strong linear dependencies (see p991-992 “Calibration matrix and null-space reconstruction”, Block-Hankel matrix A);
performing the singular value decomposition (SVD), the singular vector matrix V with signal/null-space bases of A can be obtained (see p991-992 “Calibration matrix and null-space reconstruction”, performing SVD); and
setting a cut-off so the signal-subspace spanned by V∥ and null-subspace spanned by V⊥ are separated (see p991-992 “Calibration matrix and null-space reconstruction”, separating V∥ and V⊥).
However, Uecker does not disclose: transforming extracted V⊥, the segment corresponding to the ith channel of each null-ubspace basis vj, into a 2D null-subspace convolution kernel fijnull through devectorization, each k-space kernel fijfull is transformed into an image-domain map sijnull through zero-padding and IFFT; forming an image-domain overdetermined nulling system using sijnull; combining multiple sijnull to construct multi-channel spatial nulling maps N; building an image-domain nulling system with N, and reconstructing multi-channel images by solving the nulling system, specifically, with spatial nulling maps N estimated from the central k-space lines.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Park et al. (WO 2017/155364) also discloses MRI reconstruction utilizing SVD and Hankel matrix separating V∥ and V⊥.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SJ PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3569. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, ANDREW MOYER can be reached at 571-272-9523. 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.
/SJ Park/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights