Ex Parte Jain et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2018

14127608 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/127,608 12/19/2013 Ameet Kumar Jain
24737 7590 04/30/2018
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2011P00669WOUS 7935
EXAMINER
MANGIALASCHI, TRACY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2018 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMEET KUMAR JAIN and
CHRISTOPHER STEPHEN HALL
Appeal2017-010446
Application 14/127,608 1
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITT A II, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 9, 14--17, 19, 21, and 24, which are all of
the claims pending in the application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 3 5
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. as the real party in
interest. See App. Br. 4.
2 Claims 2--4, 8, 10-13, 18, 20, 22, 23, and 25 are cancelled.
Appeal2017-010446
Application 14/127,608
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to image correction
for a medical imaging device; image correction is provided by detecting
aberrations between images (Spec. 8: 14--17, Abstract). 3 Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An imaging correction system, comprising:
a tracked imaging probe configured to generate imaging
volumes of a region of interest from different positions;
an image compensation module configured to process a
plurality of image signals acquired from different orientations by
a medical imaging device associated with the probe and correlate
information observed in one image to that observed in another
image based on at least one model to determine aberrations
between an assumed wave velocity through the region of interest
and a compensated wave velocity through the region of interest;
and
an image correction module configured to receive the
aberrations determined by the image compensation module and
generate at least one corrected image for display based on the
compensated wave velocity.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 14, 15, 19, 21, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rohling et al. (R.N. Rohling, A.H. Gee
& L. Berman, Automatic Registration of 3-D Ultrasound Images, CUED/F-
INFENG/TR 290, 1-23 (Cambridge University Engineering Department)
3 This Decision refers to: ( 1) Appellants' Specification filed December 19,
2013 ("Spec."); (2) the Final Office Action mailed September 20, 2016
("Final Act."); (3) the Appeal Brief filed February, 17 2017 ("App. Br."); (4)
the Examiner's Answer mailed June 15, 2017 ("Ans."); and (5) the Reply
Brief filed July 27, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2017-010446
Application 14/127,608
(1997)) (hereinafter "Rohling") and Piron et al. (US 2005/0080333 Al;
published Apr. 14, 2005) (hereinafter "Piron"). Final Act. 11-24.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rohling, Piron, and Krucker et al. (Jochen F. Krucker,
J. Brian Fowlkes & Paul L. Carson, Sound Speed Estimation Using
Ultrasound Image Registration, 437--440, Department of Radiology and
Applied Physics Program, University of Michigan (IEEE 2002)) (hereinafter
"Krucker"). Id. at 24--25.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rohling, Piron, and Haimerl (US 2007/0167757 Al;
published July 19, 2007). Id. at 25-26.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See
MPEP § 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) and 41.39(a)(l).
ANALYSIS
"correlate . .. to determine aberrations"
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Rohling and Piron teaches "correlat[ing] information observed in one image
to that observed in another image based on at least one model to determine
aberrations between an assumed wave velocity through the region of interest
and a compensated wave velocity through the region of interest," as recited
in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 9 and 19. App. Br. 9-17; Reply
Br. 5-8. Specifically, Appellants argue "all of the sweeps" in Rohling "are
registered to the baseline sweep ... without the information in any of the
sweeps being correlated to each other." App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 6.
3
Appeal2017-010446
Application 14/127,608
Appellants further argue "the correlation disclosed by Rohling is merely a
registration procedure to align the images" rather than "the correlation
[being] utilized to determine aberrations." App. Br. 12 (citation and
emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 7. Appellants further argue "there is no
teaching or suggestion in Piron that a model (presumably an MRI image or
an ultrasound ("US") image) may be utilized to correlate information
observed in one US or MRI image with information observed in another US
or MRI image." App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 8-9.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner relies on (Final Act. 12)
Rohling' s disclosure of "spatial compounding to improve the quality of the
3-D ultrasound data" constructed using ultrasound image "sweeps." Rohling
1-2 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further relies on (Final Act. 12)
Rohling's disclosure that "[s]patial compounding is performed by accurately
registering the last five sweeps to the first baseline sweep" (Rohling 7,
Fig. 6). The Examiner finds (Final Act. 11-12), and we agree, Rohling's
"correlation-based registration of each sweep onto the baseline" (Rohling 8;
see also id. at 1-8, 10, Figs. 1, 3), teaches "correlating information observed
in one image to that observed in another image based on at least one model."
Additionally, the Examiner relies on (Final Act. 13) Piron's disclosure
of "correct[ing] for errors in the US [(ultrasound)] data set" caused by the
different speeds at which sound travels through different body tissue, e.g.,
Piron corrects for errors that "distort the image in the direction parallel to the
sound propagation, causing the image to be either compressed or expanded
depending on the assumed speed of sound" (Piron i-f 157). We agree with
the Examiner's finding (Final Act. 13) that Piron's disclosure of "corrections
for the actual speed-of-sound ... reflecting the actual tissues through which
4
Appeal2017-010446
Application 14/127,608
the US field propagates" (Piron i-f 157; see Piron i-fi-1 158-161) teaches the
claimed "determin[ing] aberrations between an assumed wave velocity
through the region of interest and a compensated wave velocity through the
region of interest."
Appellants' argument that "none of the cited portions of Rohling teach
[the] specific features for correlating information of separate images to each
other" because "all of the sweeps" in Rohling "are registered to the baseline
sweep ... without the information in any of the sweeps being correlated to
each other" (Reply Br. 6; App. Br. 12), does not address persuasively the
Examiner's finding that Rohling teaches a "correlation-based registration of
each sweep onto the baseline" (Final Act. 12-13 (citing Rohling 7-8, Fig.
6)). Specifically, Rohling's baseline sweep, i.e., "one image," is correlated
to other sweeps, i.e., "another image." Rohling 7, Fig. 6.
Appellants further argue Rohling does not teach "at least one model,"
as claimed, because "Rohling does not teach that information from two
different sweeps are correlated with each other based on the baseline sweep"
(Reply Br. 6, emphasis added). We are unpersuaded. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that the "correlation-based registration" model used to
correlate Rohling' s baseline sweep with each of the other sweeps teaches the
"at least one model" (Ans. 22; see also Rohling 8).
Further, Appellants' arguments that "Rohling [is] completely silent
with respect to determining aberrations between an assumed wave velocity
and a compensated wave velocity" (Reply Br. 7, 9; App. Br. 12) and that
"Piron does not disclose that information in two separate images are
specifically correlated with each other based on a model US or MRI image"
(App. Br. 14) improperly attack Rohling and Piron individually when the
5
Appeal2017-010446
Application 14/127,608
rejection is based on the combination of Rohling and Piron. In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted) ("Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references."). In particular, Appellants' argument does not address the
Examiner's combination of Rohling, which teaches correlating a baseline
ultrasound imaging sweep with another ultrasound imaging sweep (Rohling
7, Fig. 6), with Piron, which teaches the determination of aberrations
between an assumed speed of sound and the actual speed of sound through
tissue (Piron i-f 157; see Piron i-fi-1158-161), to teach "correlat[ing]
information observed in one image to that observed in another image based
on at least one model to determine aberrations between an assumed wave
velocity through the region of interest and a compensated wave velocity
through the region of interest." Final Act. 13-14. Furthermore, while not
necessary to reach our decision, we note that, contrary to Appellants'
argument that "Piron does not disclose that information in two separate
images are specifically correlated with each other based on a model US or
MRI image" (App. Br. 14), Piron does teach the correlation of separate
images. In particular, Piron discloses "[a]n ... approach to [the speed of
sound variation] problem is to use image co-registration methods to map the
US data to the MRI data. A number of co-registration methods exist which
transform the location of point with one image to best match its location in
another .... " Piron i-f 161; Piron i-fi-1158-159.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Rohling and Piron teaches "correlat[ing] information
observed in one image to that observed in another image based on at least
6
Appeal2017-010446
Application 14/127,608
one model to determine aberrations between an assumed wave velocity
through the region of interest and a compensated wave velocity through the
region of interest," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 9 and
19.
Improper Combination
Appellants contend the Examiner improperly combined Rohling and
Piron. App. Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 8-9. Specifically, Appellants argue "the
Piron system and Rohling system are completely different systems which
address speed of sound aberrations in completely different manners.
Consequently, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have no
motivation to combine Piron and Rohling .... " Reply Br. 9; App. Br. 14.
We are not persuaded. Appellants' argument that there is "no
motivation of combine Piron and Rohling" (Reply Br. 9; App. Br. 14) does
not address the Examiner's stated motivation for the combination -
"provid[ing] an alternate means to correct for speed of sound errors" (Final
Act. 14). Further, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner fails to
articulate reasoning for the combination having "some rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'! v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 417-18 (2007). Both Rohling and Piron are directed to
systems for improving ultrasound images (Ans. 29-30); improving
ultrasound images by applying different techniques of addressing ultrasound
errors, i.e., applying Piron's techniques to correct for speed of sound
variations, is rational.
Furthermore, Appellants' argument that "the Piron system and
Rohling system are completely different systems" (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 9)
does not persuade us of Examiner error. Rather, we agree with the
7
Appeal2017-010446
Application 14/127,608
Examiner's determination that "both Rohling and Piron are concerned with
improving the visualization quality of medical images" (Ans. 29). As the
Examiner points out (id.), Rohling is directed to a system "to improve the
quality of the ... ultrasound data, so that existing visualisation and analysis
techniques are more successful" by addressing errors in "the speed of sound
estimate" (Rohling 1-2, 7). Piron is similarly directed to ultrasound image
error correction to "correct for speed of sound variations" through different
tissue (Piron i-fi-f 154--161 ), and is, accordingly directed to the same field of
endeavor as Rohling, i.e., techniques for ultrasound image improvement.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner improperly
combined Rohling and Piron. We, therefore, sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 19, as well as the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of dependent claims 5-7, 14--17, 21 and 24, which are
not argued separately. See App. Br. 15-21.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1, 5-7, 9, 14--17, 19, 21, and 24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8