Ex Parte Groth et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2018

14380982 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/380,982 08/26/2014 Alexandra Groth
24737 7590 12/26/2018
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.
2011P01977WOUS 2826
EXAMINER
LUONG, PETER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2018 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 ALEKSANDRA GROTH, JEURGEN WEESE,
HELKO LEHMANN, and HANS BARSCHDORF
Appeal 2018-001815
Application 14/380,982
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, BRETT C. MARTIN, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection2 of claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Appeal is taken from the Final Office Action dated January 6, 2017, as
supplemented by the Advisory Action dated March 30, 2017.
Appeal 2018-001815
Application 14/380,982
1. An apparatus for visualizing a conduction tract of a heart
of a subject, comprising:
a storage configured to store a generic heart model and
model data, the generic heart model representing at least a
portion of an actual heart, and the model data corresponding to
the generic heart model indicating at least one of a shape and a
position of the conduction tract in the generic heart model;
an input configured to receive geometrical data of the heart
of the subject corresponding to the generic heart model and
electrophysiological data of the subject,
a model adapter configured to adapt the generic heart
model to match the geometrical data inputted to the input to
generate an adapted generic heart model;
a model data modifier configured to modify the model data
into modified model data to reflect the adapted generic heart
model provided by the model adapter indicating at least one of
an adapted shape and an adapted position of the conduction tract
in the generic heart model;
a model refiner configured to refine the modified model
data into refined model data indicating at least one of a refined
shape and a refined position of the conduction tract in the generic
heart model based on the electrophysiological data; and
a generator configured to generate a visualization of the
conduction tract, having the at least one of the refined shape and
the refined position using the refined model data.
THE REJECTI0NS 3
I. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Koertge (US 2008/0214945 Al; published
Sept. 4, 2008) and Mansi (US 2013/0197881 Al; published Aug. 1, 2013).
II. Claims 2 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Koertge, Mansi, and M. Sermesant et al., Simulation of
3 The Examiner's rejection of clams 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is withdrawn. Ans. 3.
2
Appeal 2018-001815
Application 14/380,982
cardiac pathologies using an electromechanical biventricular model and
XMR interventional imaging, Medical Image Analysis (2005).
III. Claims 2 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Koertge, Mansi, and M. Sermesant et al., Patient-specific
electrochemical models of the heart for the prediction of pacing actual
effects in CRT: A preliminary clinical validation, Medical Image Analysis
(2012).
IV. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Koertge, Mansi, and Willis (US 2007 /0049826 Al;
published Mar. 1, 2007).
V. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Koertge, Mansi, Willis, and Hancock (US 2010/0030107
Al; published Feb. 4, 2010).
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Regarding the independent claims, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that
Koertge discloses "providing a generic heart model and corresponding
model data indicating a shape and position of the conduction tract in the
heart model." Ans. 5 (citing Koertge ,r,r 13, 14); see also Final Act. 3. In
support, the Examiner determines that Koertge' s finite element model ( or
FEM) involves "physical structures of the heart." Id. at 6 (citing Koertge
,r 13). The Examiner also relies on Koertge for disclosing a model adapter
configured to adapt the generic heart model to match geometrical data of the
heart of the subject to generate an adapted generic heart model, as claimed,
and also a model data modifier configured to modify the model data into
3
Appeal 2018-001815
Application 14/380,982
modified model data to reflect the adapted generic heart model indicating at
least one of an adapted shape and an adapted position of the conduction tract
in the generic heart model. Final Act. 3. The Examiner determines Koertge
"does not teach the refiner," as claimed, and relies on Mansi for teaching
"modifying and refining an anatomical heart model using
electrophysiology." Id. The Examiner reasons that it would have been
obvious to have provided Koertge with "modeling of the heart" as taught by
Mansi "to accurately model the heart specific to the patient." Id.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that
Koertge does not disclose any generic heart model along with
corresponding model data indicating shape or position of a
conduction tract in any generic heart model. Instead of any such
generic heart model that already includes shape or position of a
conduction tract, Koertge generates a patient specific model from
patient specific images, as clearly shown in step 102 of FIG. 1
and described in paragraph [0013].
Reply Br. 4. Appellants submit that Paragraph 13 of Koertge discloses that
the patient specific model is generated from images of the patient, which
cannot indicate the shape or position of the conduction tract in the generic
heart model, as claimed, because "conduction tracts are not visible in
images." Id. Appellants further submit that mapping electrogram data to a
corresponding element of the FEM, as disclosed in Koertge, does not cure
this error in the Examiner's findings. Id. (citing Koertge ,r,r 15, 16).
Paragraph 13 of Koertge discloses, with reference to Figure 1, that
at step 102, a finite element model (FEM) representing the
physical structure of a heart is generated. As is well known, an
FEM is a mathematical model of the physical geometry of a
structure. The FEM of the heart can be generated based on
anatomical images of the heart. For example, the FEM can be
generated based on MRI, CT, or angiography images of the heart.
4
Appeal 2018-001815
Application 14/380,982
Such images can be converted into an FEM using known
commercially available software. According to an embodiment
of the present invention, the FEM of the heart can be a patient
specific model generated using patient specific CT, MRI, or
angiogram images. The generation of a cardiac FEM model is
described in greater detail in Hashim et al., . . . . 4 The FEM
divides the physical structure of the heart into small finite
segments known as elements. Accordingly, each element of the
FEM represents a specific location in the physical structure of
the heart. The FEM can be expressed mathematically as an FEM
matrix made up of the elements, and can also be displayed in
graphical form.
We agree with Appellants that Koertge is silent with respect to
whether the FEM representing a physical structure of the heart includes
model data corresponding to the generic heart model indicating a shape or
position of the conduction tract in the generic heart model, as required by the
independent claims. Cf Spec. 2:26 ("a generic model with encoded
conduction structures is adapted to the patient specific heart shape" such that
"the general mean shape and location of the conduction structures is
transferrable to the patient's geometry"); Appeal Br. 31-32, 34--36 (Claims
App.). Further, the example of generating an FEM that is provided in
Koertge discloses generating the FEM based on anatomical images of the
heart. See Spec. 1 :26-30 ("Currently, no information about the
physiological conduction tracts ... is available to the physician in an
ablation procedure since these structures are neither visible on intra-
interventionally acquired x-ray images nor on pre-interventionally acquired
CT and MR images."); see also Mansi ,r 43 ("In general, the anatomical
4 "'Finite Element Method in Cardiac Surgery,' Interactive Cardiovascular
and Thoracic Surgery 5 (2006) 5-8." Koertge ,r 13.
5
Appeal 2018-001815
Application 14/380,982
structures of the Purkinje network cannot be extracted from medical imaging
modalities.").
The Examiner's reliance on Paragraph 14 of Koertge does not cure
this deficiency (i.e., the absence of an express disclosure in Paragraph 13 of
Koertge that model data corresponding to a generic heart model indicates a
shape or positon of the conduction tract in the generic heart model).
Paragraph 14 discloses that
[i]n order to generate an FEM of the heart, the heart can
be segmented into finite elements based on the cardiac
anatomical structure, via which a finite element matrix can be
achieved to localize and diagnose the function of the each [sic]
element. Specifically, each chamber of the heart can be mapped
into finite element model with accurate dimension and position
tracking information, both 2D and 3D. For example, based on
pre-knowledge from an image, such as a CT image or an X-ray
image, the maximum displacement and geometry of the heart can
be derived. Then a 2D structure can be built with the boundary
condition and size information, which is utilized to create a finite
element model by appropriately meshing a structure with 2D
elements. Usually a generic finite element model can be
constructed and with some minute adjustments, such as size and
boundary, of the constructed heart model, an accurate FEM can
be created for cardiac function analysis and medical application.
Here, again, Koertge fails to expressly disclose that the finite segments, or
elements, on the cardiac anatomical structure include a shape or position of
the conduction tract in the generic heart model.
The Examiner's reliance on Mansi for teaching "modifying and
refining an anatomical heart model using electrophysiology" also fails to
remedy this deficiency in the Examiner's finding with respect to Koertge.
Final Act. 3. Although Mansi discloses, with respect to Figure 7, that "the
electrophysiological conduction system of the heart is composed of several
6
Appeal 2018-001815
Application 14/380,982
elements including the sinoatrial node, atrioventricular node, His bundle,
and Purkinje fibers" (i.e., conduction tracts5) (Mansi ,r 42), and further, that
"in order to model the cardiac dynamics accurately, each component needs
to be modeled properly" (id.), the Examiner does not rely on Mansi for
disclosing a generic heart model and model data, wherein the model data
corresponding to the generic heart model indicates a shape or position of the
conduction tract in the generic heart model. Final Act. 3; Adv. Act. 2; Ans.
5-8. Rather, as set forth supra, the Examiner relies solely on Mansi for
disclosing "an anatomical model (312) which is refined by
electrophysiological data (322) to generate a patient specific model (320)."
Ans. 6.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 11, and 12, and claims 3, 4, and 6-8 depending
therefrom.
Rejections 11-V
The Examiner's reliance on secondary references in the rejections of
claims 2, 5, 9, and 10, which depend from independent claim 1, does not
cure the deficiency in the Examiner's finding regarding independent claim 1,
as discussed supra. Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons set forth
supra, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 5, 9, and
10.
5 Spec. 1: 16-19 ("In the ablation procedure, it is important to know the
location of the physiological conduction tracts like the Bachmann's bundle
and Purkinje fibres since they have a specific function and their ablation
would irrevocably destroy the normal conduction pathways of the heart.").
7
Appeal 2018-001815
Application 14/380,982
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
8