Ex Parte Jain et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 26, 201814127608 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation