13142299 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2017)

Ex Parte Harks et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 25, 2017

13142299 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/142,299 09/08/2011 Erik Harks 2009P00212WOUS 1536 24737 7590 07/27/2017 PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS EXAMINER 465 Columbus Avenue LUONG, PETER Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3777 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/27/2017 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): marianne. fox @ philips, com debbie.henn @philips .com patti. demichele @ Philips, com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERIK HARKS, SZABOLCS DELADI, JAN FREDERIK SUIJVER, LADISLAV JANKOVIC, YAN SHI, WOUTER HARRY JACINTH RENSEN, MAYA BARLEY, and NIJS CORNELIS VAN DER VAART Appeal 2016-0007491 Application 13/142,299 Technology Center 3700 Before LINDA E. HORNER, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Erik Harks et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15. Final Office Action (October 17, 2014) (hereinafter “Final Act.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 3 (March 13, 2015) (hereinafter “Appeal Br.”). Appeal 2016-000749 Application 13/142,299 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ claimed subject matter relates to an apparatus, method, and computer program for monitoring an ablation procedure. Spec. 1,11. 3- 4. Claims 1, 14, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below. 1. A monitoring apparatus for monitoring an ablation procedure applied to an object, the monitoring apparatus comprising: an ultrasound signal providing unit structurally configured to provide an ultrasound signal produced by sending ultrasound pulses out to the object, to receive dynamic echo series after the ultrasound pulses have been reflected by the object, and to generate the ultrasound signal depending on the received dynamic echo series; and an ablation depth determination unit structurally configured to determine an ablation depth being defined by a boundary of a lesion within the object from the provided ultrasound signal. Appeal Br. 25 (Claims Appendix). REJECTIONS The Final Office Action includes the following rejections: 1. Claims 1,2, and 7-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Imran (US 5,409,000, issued April 25, 1995). 2. Claims 3-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Imran and Cai (US 2008/0097207 Al, published April 24, 2008). 2 Appeal 2016-000749 Application 13/142,299 ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites that the ultrasound signal providing unit generates an ultrasound signal depending on a received dynamic echo series, wherein the dynamic echo series is received after ultrasound pulses have been sent out to, and reflected by, the object. Appeal Br. 25 (Claims Appendix). Independent claim 1 further recites that the ablation depth determination unit determines ablation depth from the provided ultrasound signal. Id. Independent method claim 14 and independent computer medium claim 15 recite similar limitations. Id. at 29-30. Appellants’ Specification defines a dynamic echo series as follows: Furthermore, several ultrasound pulses are sent out to the object at different times, thereby generating echo series at different times. These echo series, which are obtained from different ultrasound pulses at different times and, thus, which belong to different times, form dynamic echo series. The ultrasound signal which depends on the received dynamic echo series represents therefore the ultrasound reflection properties of the object at different depths and at different times. Spec. 2,11. 24-29. The Specification further describes the dynamic echo series with reference to Figures 2 and 3: The echo series 21 exemplarily shown in Fig. 2 has been generated by an ultrasound pulse that was sent out into the object at a certain time. Several of these ultrasound pulses are sent out to the object at different times, thereby generating echo series at different times. These echo series, which are obtained from different ultrasound pulses at different times, and, thus, which belong to different times, form dynamic echo series. The ultrasound signal which depends on the received dynamic echo series represents therefore the ultrasound reflection properties of the object at different depths and at different times. Such an 3 Appeal 2016-000749 Application 13/142,299 ultrasound signal is schematically and exemplarily shown in Fig. 3. Spec. 14,11. 20-27. Based on the description provided in Appellants’ Specification, we understand the claimed “dynamic echo series” to mean an echo series resulting from different ultrasound pulses sent to an object at different times. Appellants argue that Imran discloses “generation of an ultrasound image of a myocardium layer of a heart whereby a formation of a lesion within the myocardium layer via ablation may be observed.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellants contend that the claimed invention “improve[s] upon the observation based technique of an ultrasound image of the myocardium layer by Imran with a generation of an ultrasound signal from a dynamic echo series of the myocardium layer that is distinct [from] the ultrasound image of the myocardium layer.” Id. at 15 (citing Figure 3). Appellants further assert: More particularly, while a series of single ultrasound pulses of Imran will generate sequential ultrasound images, each ultrasound image nonetheless is illustrated on screen 92 on an individual basis for an observation of a boundary between a lesion within the myocardium that is limited to the currently displayed ultrasound image. Thus, the Imran Lesion Observation may not be interpreted as collectively constituting a single ultrasound signal derived from a plurality of ultrasound pulses whereby the single ultrasound signal serves as a basis for defining a boundary between a lesion within the myocardium. Reply Br. 13. For the reasons that follow, we agree with Appellants that Imran does not disclose producing an ultrasound signal depending on a 4 Appeal 2016-000749 Application 13/142,299 received dynamic echo series and determining an ablation depth from that ultrasound signal, as recited in the claims. Imran discloses an ablation catheter having ultrasonic viewing means carried by its distal extremity. Imran, col. 2,11. 37-38. Specifically, Imran discloses that catheter 81 is provided with ultrasonic transducer 95 mounted within circular recess 97 extending inwardly of tip 86. Id. at col. 6,11. 15- 18, Fig. 5. The front and back sides of ultrasonic transducer 96 are connected to conductors 99 which are connected into instrumentation 91. Id. at col. 6,11. 24-29. Imran discloses displaying an ultrasound image of the heart on a screen 92 at different times during the heart mapping and ablation procedure using the echoes that are returned and picked up by the transducer. Id. at col. 6,11. 39^44. Imran teaches ascertaining the depth of the lesion by observing screen 92 and converting echo time to depth. Id. at col. 6,11. 52-63. Thus, we understand Imran to disclose converting echo time to depth for sequential ultrasound images, not determining ablation depth from an ultrasound signal generated based on dynamic echo series, which is obtained from different ultrasound pulses sent to an object at different times. For these reasons, Imran does not anticipate independent claims 1, 14, and 15, and claims 2 and 7-13, which depend from claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the first ground of rejection of claims 1,2, and 7-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The Examiner relies on the same deficient findings as to the disclosure of Imran as the basis for the second ground of rejection of claims 3-6 based on Imran and Cai. Final Act. 3. For the same reasons discussed 5 Appeal 2016-000749 Application 13/142,299 above, we do not sustain the second ground of rejection of claims 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 is reversed. REVERSED 6