Ex Parte Hazard et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 6, 201612360881 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/360,881 01/28/2009 94288 7590 01/08/2016 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY GLOBAL RESEARCH ONE RESEARCH CIRCLE BLDG. Kl-3A59 NISKAYUNA, NY 12309 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Christopher Robert Hazard UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 226908-1 7241 EXAMINER PENG, BO JOSEPH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3768 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/08/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): haeckl@ge.com gpo.mail@ge.com Lori.e.rooney@ge.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRISTOPHER ROBERT HAZARD, FENG LIN, MIRSAID SEYED-BOLORFOROSH, and KENNETH WAYNE RIGBY Appeal2013-006588 Application 12/360,881 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-16. Br. 2. Claims 4 and 11 have been canceled while claims 17-19 have been withdrawn. App. Br. 12, 14--15 (Claims Appendix); Br. 2; Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appeal2013-006588 Application 12/360,881 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter "relate[ s] to ultrasound imaging, and more particularly to acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) imaging." Spec. i-f 1. Sole independent claim 1 is reproduced below and is illustrative of the claims on appeal: 1. An ultrasound imaging method, comprising: identifying a plurality of locations within a region of interest; delivering a pulse sequence to two or more of the plurality of locations in a determined order, wherein the pulse sequence comprises a pushing pulse, and a tracking pulse; and applying a motion correction sequence to each of the plurality of locations where the pulse sequence is delivered, wherein delivering a pulse sequence to the two or more of the plurality of locations comprises determining the determined order based on a cost function for each of the plurality of locations, wherein the cost function is related to a total amount of heat provided to a location, or peak temperature for a location, or both. REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Miller US 6,669,638 Bl Dec. 30, 2003 Nightingale US 2004/0167403 Al Aug. 26, 2004 Trahey US 2005/0215899 Al Sept. 29, 2005 Fahey et al., Frame Rate Considerations for Real-Time Abdominal Radiation Force Impulse Imaging, 2006, Ultrason Imaging, 28(4), 193-210. THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Trahey and Fahey. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Trahey, Fahey, and Miller. 2 Appeal2013-006588 Application 12/360,881 Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Trahey, Fahey, and Nightingale. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10, and 12-16 as unpatentable over Trahey and Fahey Appellants argue claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10, and 12-16 as a group. Br. 6- 10. We select independent claim 1 for review with dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, and 12-16 standing or falling therewith. See 37 CPR§ 41.37( c )(1 )(iv). The Examiner relies primarily on the teachings of Trahey directed to Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse (ARFI) imaging including Trahey's disclosure of "delivering a pulse sequence to two or more of the plurality of locations in a determined order" as claimed. Final Act. 4; see also Trahey Title and Abstract. However, the Examiner acknowledges that Trahey fails to teach determining the determined order based on a cost function "related to a total amount of heat provided to a location" as also claimed. Final Act. 4. For this, the Examiner relies on the teachings of Fahey, stating that Fahey "teaches the modeling of ultrasonic thermal effects" in impulse imaging. 1 Final Act. 4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious "to modify the method of Trahey [] to include the modeling of ultrasonic thermal effects of Fahey [] in order to develop thermally-safe ARFI imaging beam sequences." Final Act. 4. 1 The Examiner also states that "Fahey teaches determining the determined order based on a cost function" with such cost function being modeled on "the heat generated by using conventional pulse sequenc[ing] (conventional ARFI)." Ans. 9. 3 Appeal2013-006588 Application 12/360,881 Appellants do not address the teachings of Trahey other than to state, (a) that they disagree with the Examiner's rejection that relies upon Trahey (Br. 7); and also, (b) "that Fahey fails to overcome the deficiencies of the primary reference, Trahey" (Br. 9). Other than the Examiner's acknowledged deficiency of Trahey regarding determining the determined order based on heat, Appellants do indicate what other deficiency of Trahey the Examiner failed to overcome. Presuming such other deficiency has to do with the claim limitation of delivering a pulse sequence to a plurality of locations in a determined order, the Examiner, in the record presented, identifies several paragraphs in Trahey that teach this limitation. See Final Act. 4 (referencing Trahey i-fi-1 46, 74, 75, 79, and 94). We note in particular that paragraph 46 of Trahey teaches that "a region of tissue 10 []is interrogated" using ARFI technology while paragraph 74 teaches "tracking lines" that are "divided into sequential axial search regions." In particular, paragraph 74 of Trahey teaches that "[t]he a priori knowledge of the direction of motion reduces the algorithm implementation time. "2 In view of these and other disclosures relied on by the Examiner, we are persuaded that the Examiner has presented at least a prima facie case that Trahey discloses the limitation directed to delivering pulse sequences to a plurality of locations in a determined order. See Final Act. 4. We also note that Appellants acknowledge that Fahey teaches modeling the intensity of the ARFI pushing beam so as "to minimize the overlap and to measure thermal heating in the tissue." Br. 8 (emphasis 2 In other words, it is desirable for the direction of motion to be known beforehand and hence this direction of motion (i.e., "plurality of locations") occurs "in a determined order" as found by the Examiner. Final Act. 4. 4 Appeal2013-006588 Application 12/360,881 added). In other words, Appellants acknowledge that Fahey addresses heat (as well as signal overlap) as a modeling factor for ARFI imaging. In disputing the rejection of claim 1, Appellants focus on Fahey contending that Fahey teaches "altering the intensity of the pushing beam to meet the frame rate requirements and maintain desirable temperatures of the tissues." Br. 8; see also id. at 7. Appellants contend that Fahey's change in pulse or beam intensity for temperature purposes does not disclose a location-based determined order for delivering pulses as recited. Br. 8. Even assuming arguendo that Fahey does not disclose a location- based determined order, Appellants have not explained how the Examiner erred in relying on Trahey for teaching this limitation. See supra. Additionally, Appellants have not explained how the Examiner erred in relying on Fahey's concern with tissue temperatures arising from ARFI imaging (see Br. 8; Final Act. 4; Ans. 9) to conclude that it would have been obvious to modify Trahey's method to incorporate the teachings of Fahey "in order to develop thermally-safe ARFI imaging beam sequences." Final Act. 4. In other words, Appellants' focus on Fahey's failure to disclose a determined order (or ''firing order," see Br. 8-9) is not persuasive of Examiner error. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10, and 12-16. The rejection of (a) claims 6 and 7 as unpatentable over Trahey, Fahey, and Miller; and, (b) claim 8 as unpatentable over Trahey, Fahey, and Nightingale Claims 6-8 each depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's additional reliance on Miller and Nightingale for their specific additional teachings. Br. 10-11. Instead, Appellants contend that these additional references "fail[] to overcome the 5 Appeal2013-006588 Application 12/360,881 deficiencies of the primary reference." Br. 10-11. Appellants' contentions are not persuasive. We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 6-8. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-16 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED tkl 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation