Ex Parte Randall et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 19, 2016

11671307 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111671,307 0210512007
28524 7590 01/21/2016
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kevin S. Randall
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.
2007P50346US 8751
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, HIEN NGOC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3777
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
0112112016 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN S. RANDALL, JOSEPH A. URBANO,
LAWRENCE A. ENGLE, ANTHONY P. LANNUTTI,
JODI SCHWARTZ KLESSEL, RAYMOND F. WEYMER JR., and
MICHAEL G. CANNON
Appeal2013-003312
Application 11/671,3071
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed invention relates to "methods and systems for
locating moving tissue." (Spec. i-f 10.)
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Siemens Medical
Solutions USA, Inc. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal2013-003312
Application 11/671,307
Claims 1 and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative and reproduced below (emphasis added):
1. An ultrasound system comprising:
a probe comprising:
a transducer that transmits a first and second
ultrasound pulse at a sample volume within an object and
receives a first and second echo signal of the first and
second ultrasound pulses; and
a main unit comprising:
a vessel locator, the vessel locator configured to
determine whether a blood vessel is located within the
sample volume, the vessel locator being further
configured to:
compute an estimate of position displacement data
of the sample volume from the first and second echo
signals;
compare the estimate of position displacement
data to a predetermined position displacement data
threshold indicative of moving tissue;
determine, based on the comparison, whether the
sample volume corresponds to moving tissue, based, at
least in part, on determining whether the estimate of
position displacement data exceeds the predetermined
position displacement data threshold;
repeating the transmitting, receiving, computing,
comparing, and determining for one or more additional
sample volumes, the repeating initiated by the vessel
locator based on the determination conducted for a
sample volume previous to the one or more additional
sample volumes;
indicate a located blood vessel upon at least one of
the sample volume or the one or more additional sample
volumes being determined to correspond to moving
tissue; and
a position displacement audio processor that
creates an audio representation of the blood flow within
the located blood vessel.
2
Appeal2013-003312
Application 11/671,307
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1-11and13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Miele (US 2002/0055680 Al, pub. May 9, 2002)
and Shiki (US 2003/0125624 Al, pub. July 3, 2003).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Miele, Shiki, and Hwang (US 6,142,946, iss. Nov. 7, 2000).
FINDINGS OF FACT
\Ve relv on the Examiner's findings of fact stated in the Non-Final . ,_,
Office Action mailed January 5, 2012, and in the Ansvver. Additional
findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-11. 19. and 20
Claims 1-11, 19, and 20 are argued together. (See Appeal Br. 5-8.)
These claims stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
The Examiner relies on Miele for teaching the vessel locator recited in
claim 1. (Non-Final Act. 4-5, citing Miele i-fi-122, 161, 172, 195, 210-211,
2 Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected as unpatentable over claims 1-17
of Application No. 11/671,299 ("the '299 application") on the ground of
non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting. However, the '299
application went abandoned on August 31, 2015. Therefore, we dismiss as
moot the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection of
claims 1-20.
3
Appeal2013-003312
Application 11/671,307
- - . - - - - - -- - . - - - '1 - . - _,
claims 1, 3, and 27, and Figs. 3 lb-32;_, see also Answer 5-6) Specifically,
the Examiner determines that Miele discloses
using software to detect reduce [sic] in signal at different depth
and repeat the process to identify blood vessel; compare signal
to threshold to detect back and front wall of the lumen; [and] it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention that reduction of signal level to a
certain range indicate the existence of blood vessel and this
range is the threshold; different depth level is different sample
volumes; scanning different depth level/sample volume is based
on the result of previous sample volume scan.
(Non-Final Act. 5.)
Appellants disagree. Appellants argue that Miele does not disclose
the "compute," "compare," and "repeating" limitations of the vessel locator.
(See Appeal Br. 6-8; see also Reply Br. 2--4.)
The "Compute" Limitation
Appellants argue, "Meile [sic], et al. use A-line data, not position
displacement data." (Appeal Br. 6.) According to Appellants, "Meile [sic],
et al. rely on A-line information (paragraph 161) for determining blood
vessel location (paragraphs 157-240). An A-line is a term of art for the
backscattered energy or intensity along a scan line (see paragraphs 161, 163,
179, and 180)." (Id.) Appellants further assert that "[fJinding the location
(instantaneous) is not finding movement or displacement." (Reply Br. 2.)
Although the Specification does not provide a precise definition,
according to the Specification, "the phrase 'position displacement data' is
primarily used herein to refer to any information that may be used to
3 We understand the Examiner's citation of "Figs. 31 b-32" to refer to
Figures 31 b, 32a, and 32b of Miele.
4
Appeal2013-003312
Application 11/671,307
calculate the motion velocity of target echo signals (e.g., time displacement,
phase displacement, etc.)." (Spec. i-f 16; see also id. i-f 41.)
Miele discloses that backscattered energy is converted into A-mode
signal format. (Miele i-f 169; see also id. at Fig. 20.) Miele describes
Figure 21 as "a graphical representation of a 'raw' A-mode signal as a
function of depth." (Id. i-f 47.) Paragraph 172, which pertains to Figure 21
and vessel location, discloses:
As illustrated in FIG. 21, there is an obvious range, from about
1.5 mm to 3.35 mm in this example, in which the signal level is
quite low. This low signal amplitude is attributable to the low
backscattering of energy associated with the blood (lumen)
flowing the in [sic] blood vessel being located. Conversely,
where no such blood vessel lies within the ensonified region of
the tissue, no such reduction in signal level or backscattered
power is identified. This is the primary feature used by the
present embodiment for detecting the presence of the blood
vessel.
In other words, flowing blood is identified at a depth range by a signal
amplitude that is "quite low" in comparison to the signal amplitude at
surrounding depths. (See id. i-f 172, Fig. 21.) Given that Miele uses the
signal amplitude of the A-mode data to distinguish flowing blood from other
tissue, the A-mode data is indicative of movement. Appellants' argument
does not persuasively explain why the A-mode data does not fall within the
Specification's description of "position displacement data." Thus,
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in determining
that Miele teaches the "compute" limitation of the vessel locator of claim 1.
The "Compare" Limitation
Appellants argue that "Meile [sic], et al. compare acquired data
against other acquired data, not against a predetermined threshold." (Appeal
5
Appeal2013-003312
Application 11/671,307
Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 3.) The Examiner responds that "predetermined
threshold does not exclude relative information" and that "[i]n essence,
Meile [sic] identifies blood vessels by comparing data from moving blood
with data from stationary tissues (predetermined threshold) (see Meile' s [sic]
paragraph [O 101 ], [0221-0224 ], [0233-0234 ], Figs. 5a-b, 32a-b prescribed
threshold is the predetermine [sic] threshold)." (Answer 12.)
As discussed above with regard to Figure 21 of Miele, Miele discloses
that flowing blood is identified at the depth range where the signal amplitude
is "quite low" in comparison to other depth ranges. (See Miele i-f 172, Fig.
21.) In other words, the difference in signal amplitudes is determined to
meet or exceed an understood, i.e., a predetermined, threshold.
For example, Miele discloses that
[ w ]hen the backscattered energy associated with the search in
the backward direction (towards the transducer) satisfies one or
more criteria, such as exceeding the mean lumen power or
estimated level of the blood signal by a prescribed amount or
factor [i.e., a predetermined threshold] ... , the front wall is
detected and the location of the signal along the line is
interpreted as the location of the front wall. Similarly, when the
reflected energy associated with the search in the forward
direction satisfies the relevant back wall criteria, the back wall
is detected and the location of the signal along the line is
interpreted as the location of the back wall.
(Id. i-f 217.) Miele further discloses that "[i]n the embodiment of FIG. 32a, a
[predetermined] front wall threshold equal to 500 times the aforementioned
lumen mean power, and a [predetermined] back wall threshold equal to 50
times the lumen mean power, are utilized. These values were determined
empirically." (Id. i-f 224.)
6
Appeal2013-003312
Application 11/671,307
Appellants do not persuasively explain why Miele's thresholds do not
fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation of a predetermined
threshold. Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in determining that Miele teaches the "compare" limitation of the vessel
locator of claim 1.
The "Repeating" Limitation
Appellants argue that "Meile [sic], et al. acquire (transmit and receive)
the data for a scan line and then process the data to detect the location of the
lumen. Meile [sic], et al. do not initiate repetition of the transmission and
reception for another sample based on a determination of whether a vessel is
located or not." (Appeal Br. 8, emphasis added; see also Reply Br. 3--4.)
Miele, however, is not limited to a single scan line. Figures 32a and
32b show an operation of "repeat for next line," following an affirmative
determination that both walls are detected. (Miele, Figs. 32a-b.) Further,
paragraph 229 discloses that arterial wall positions are determined for an "A-
mode data set consisting of 5000 lines." In short, Miele teaches initiating
repetition for at least an additional scan line based on a determination of
whether a vessel is located. Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in determining that Miele teaches the "repeating" limitation
of the vessel locator of claim 1.
For the above reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-11, 19, and 20 under§ 103(a).
Claims 13-18
Because claims 13-18 are argued together (Appeal Br. 8-9), these
claims stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The limitations of
7
Appeal2013-003312
Application 11/671,307
independent claim 13 are similar to the limitations of claim 1, and
Appellants' arguments are similar to those made with regard to claim 1.
(See Appeal Br. 8-9.) Therefore, for the reasons discussed above,
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
13-18 under§ 103(a).
Claim 12
Appellants present no additional arguments for dependent claim 12
except that Hwang does not cure the alleged deficiencies in the combination
of Miele and Shiki with regard to the limitations of claim 1 (see Appeal
Br. 9). Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above with regard to
claim 1, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 12 under§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Miele, Shiki, and
Hwang.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Miele and Shiki is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Miele, Shiki, and Hwang is 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
rvb
8