Ex Parte Randall et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 19, 201611671307 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation