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 9 and 18 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.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the variables “res” and “r0” are not defined by the claim language. Therefore, the claims are considered indefinite. The examiner believes it is possible that claim 9 could depend from claim 8 and claim 18 could depend from claim 17.
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 1-5 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shafiekhani (“A Novel Three-Dimensional k-Space Reconstruction Method by Spherical Fourier Transform”).
Regarding claim 1, Shafiekhani teaches a method for spherical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) based on three-dimensional (3D) radial data sampling, the method comprising:
acquiring, utilizing an MRJ scanner, a plurality of frequency samples of an object in a spatial frequency domain according to a 3D radial sampling scheme [See three-dimensional radial data. See also rest of reference.]; and
reconstructing, utilizing one or more processors, a 3D image of the object in a space domain by applying a spherical Fourier transform (SFT) to the plurality of frequency samples [See Spherical Fourier Transform. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 2, Shafiekhani further teaches wherein acquiring the plurality of frequency samples according to the 3D radial sampling scheme comprises acquiring the plurality of frequency samples at regular intervals along a plurality of radial paths from a center of a 3D k-space [See three-dimensional radial data (koosh-ball). See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 3, Shafiekhani further teaches wherein reconstructing the 3D image comprises:
obtaining a first vector of spherical harmonic coefficients by calculating a respective plurality of spherical harmonic coefficients in the spatial frequency domain for each of the plurality of frequency samples [See equations in Materials and Methods section. See also rest of reference.];
obtaining a second vector of spherical harmonic coefficients by calculating a spherical Hankel transform of the first vector, the second vector comprising a respective plurality of spherical harmonic coefficients in the space domain for each of a plurality of space samples of the 3D image [See equations in Materials and Methods section. See also rest of reference.]; and
obtaining the 3D image by calculating a spherical harmonics expansion of each of the plurality of space samples based on the respective plurality of spherical harmonic coefficients in the space domain [See equations in Materials and Methods section. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 4, Shafiekhani further teaches wherein obtaining the 3D image comprises calculating the spherical harmonics expansion of a function f(r, θr, φr) representing a space sample of the plurality of space samples at a radial space distance r, a polar angle θr of the radial space distance r, and an azimuthal angle φr of the radial space distance r in the space domain according to an operation defined by the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
58
282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where:
L is an upper limit for the spherical harmonics expansion of the function f(r, θr, φr),
f1m(r) is an (l, m)th spherical harmonic coefficient of the respective plurality of spherical harmonic coefficients in a spherical harmonic expansion of the function f(r, θr, φr), and
Y1m(-) is a spherical harmonic function of order I and degree m [See equations in Materials and Methods section. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 5, Shafiekhani further teaches wherein obtaining the 3D image further comprises calculating the upper limit L according to a given spatial resolution inside a limited spherical area of the 3D image [See Materials and Methods and Results sections and Figs. 3-4. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 10, the same reasons for rejection as claim 1 above also apply to claim 10. Claim 10 is merely the system version of method claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the same reasons for rejection as claim 2 above also apply to claim 11. Claim 11 is merely the system version of method claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, the same reasons for rejection as claim 3 above also apply to claim 12. Claim 12 is merely the system version of method claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, the same reasons for rejection as claim 4 above also apply to claim 13. Claim 13 is merely the system version of method claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, the same reasons for rejection as claim 5 above also apply to claim 14. Claim 14 is merely the system version of method claim 5.
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(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Shafiekhani, in view of Eggers (US 2022/0308141).
Regarding claim 7, Shafiekhani teaches the limitations of claim 2, which this claim depends from.
However, Shafiekhani is silent in teaching wherein acquiring the plurality of frequency samples according to the 3D radial sampling scheme further comprises determining one of a number of the plurality of radial paths or an angular distance between adjacent radial paths of the plurality of radial paths based on a radial distance associated with a given spatial resolution of the 3D image.
Eggers, which is also, in the field of MRI, teaches wherein acquiring the plurality of frequency samples according to the 3D radial sampling scheme further comprises determining one of a number of the plurality of radial paths or an angular distance between adjacent radial paths of the plurality of radial paths based on a radial distance associated with a given spatial resolution of the 3D image [¶0041-0043. 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 Shafiekhani and Eggers because both references are in the field of radial k-space MRI and because Eggers teaches it is is known in the art that the number of k-space lines corresponds to the acquired spatial resolution [Eggers - ¶0041-0043. See also rest of reference.].
Regarding claim 16, the same reasons for rejection as claim 7 above also apply to claim 16. Claim 16 is merely the system version of method claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 15, and 17 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.
Claims 9 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the cited prior art does not disclose wherein obtaining the 3D image further comprises calculating the upper limit L according to an operation defined by the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
56
132
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where C is a constant, res is the given spatial resolution and r is a radial distance associated with the given spatial resolution.
Regarding claim 8 and 17, the cited prior art does not disclose wherein acquiring the number of the plurality of frequency samples according to the 3D radial sampling scheme further comprises determining a statistical distribution for an angular distance Δψ between adjacent radial paths of the plurality of radial paths according to a set of operations defined by the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
86
208
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where: res is the given spatial resolution and ro is the radial distance, mean(Δψ) is an average value of the angular distance, and std(Δψ) is a standard deviation of the angular distance.
Regarding claim 9 and 18, the cited prior art does not disclose wherein acquiring the plurality of frequency samples according to the 3D radial sampling scheme further comprises: arranging the plurality of radial paths according to a uniform angular distribution; and determining the number N of the plurality of radial paths according to an operation defined by the following:
PNG
media_image4.png
44
106
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where K is a constant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art “Reconstruction of Highly Underdamped 3D Spiral and Golden Angle Radial MRI Data Using Spherical Fourier-Legendre Transform” and US 2016/0071290 are also considered relevant because it teaches a spherical Fourier Transform.
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