Ex Parte Kawagishi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2018

13018881 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/018,881 02/01/2011 Tetsuya Kawagishi
22850 7590 11/01/2018
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
375271US2SX 9350
EXAMINER
SIRIPURAPU, RAJEEV P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2018 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):
patentdocket@oblon.com
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TETSUY A KA WAGISHI and Y ASUHIKO ABE
Appeal 2018-001283
Application 13/018,881
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
Decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 9, 11, 15-31, 33-35, and 37--40. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2018-001283
Application 13/018,881
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 33, and 35 are independent, with claims 2, 4--6, 8, 9, 11, 15-
31, 33-35, and 37--40 depending from claim 1 and claim 34 depending from
claim 33. Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and is
reproduced below:
1. An image processing apparatus, comprising:
a memory configured to store time series first images of a
first region collected by an ultrasonic diagnosis apparatus in a
first period, and time series second images of a second region
collected in a second period the second region including at least
a part of the first region; and
a processing circuit configured to
designate two or more time phases;
set a first region of interest (ROI), in accordance
with a user instruction, on each of designated first images
corresponding to the designated two or more time phases
among the time series first images;
set a second ROI, in accordance with a user
instruction, on each of designated second images corresponding
to the designated two or more time phases among the time
series second images;
acquire first information relating to a relative
positional relationship between the first ROI and the second
ROI for each of the designated two or more time phases;
register the designated first images and the
designated second images based on the first information;
set a third ROI on each of remaining first images
other than the designated first images among the time series
first images, wherein the third ROI is set by performing
template matching processing using, as a template, a pixel value
distribution of the first ROI set on one of the designated first
images;
2
Appeal 2018-001283
Application 13/018,881
set a fourth ROI on each of remaining second
images other than the designated second images among the time
series second images, wherein the fourth ROI is set by
performing template matching processing using, as a template,
a pixel value distribution of the second ROI set on one of the
designated second images;
acquire second information relating to a relative
positional relationship between the third ROI and the fourth
ROI for each of remaining time phases other than the
designated two or more time phases;
register the remaining first images and the
remaining second images based on the second;
generate a first moving image based on the
registered designated first images and the registered remaining
first images;
generate a second moving image based on the
registered designated second images and the registered
remaining second images; and
cause a display to display the first moving image
and the second moving image in parallel.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 9, 11, 16, 33, 35, 37, and 40 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Washburn (US 2009/0097778 Al,
published Apr. 16, 2009), Holloway (US 6,500,123 Bl, issued Dec. 31,
2002), Chuono (US 2010/0075575 Al, Mar. 25, 2010), 1 Halmann '768 (US
2009/0054768 Al, published Feb. 26, 2009), and Kawagishi (US
2005/0101863 Al, published May 12, 2005).
1 The Examiner notes that Chouno has been provided as a translation of WO
2008/044572 Al). Final Act. 3.
3
Appeal 2018-001283
Application 13/018,881
2. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Washburn, Holloway, Chuono, Halmann '768, Kawagishi, and Ogasawara
(US 2006/0116583 Al, published June 1, 2006).
3. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Washburn, Holloway, Chuono, Halmann '768, Kawagishi, and Olstad '810
(US 2004/0116810 Al, published June 17, 2004).
4. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Washburn, Holloway, Chuono, Halmann '768, Kawagishi, Olstad '810, and
Olstad '811 (US 5,568,811, issued Oct. 29, 1996).
5. Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Washburn, Holloway, Chuono, Halmann '768,
Kawagishi, Olstad '810, and Olstad '811, and Halmann '856 (US 5,151,856,
issued Sept. 29, 1992).
6. Claims 24--26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Washburn, Holloway, Chuono, Halmann '768,
Kawagishi, Ohuchi (US 2008/0317316 Al, published Dec. 25, 2008), and
Yamagishi (US 5,383,231, issued Jan. 17, 1995).
7. Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Washburn, Holloway, Chuono, Halmann '768,
Kawagishi, Ohuchi, and Halmann '856.
8. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Washburn, Holloway, Chuono, Halmann '768, Kawagishi, Ohuchi, and
McDermott (US 2009/0304250 Al, published Dec. 10, 2009).
9. Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Washburn, Holloway, Chuono, Halmann '768, Kawagishi, and Ohuchi.
4
Appeal 2018-001283
Application 13/018,881
OPINION
Claims
Although there is no dispute with respect to the meaning of the any
particular claim term, we find it useful to initially discuss what claim 1
requires in order to facilitate the subsequent discussion of the rejection.
Claim 1 recites "designat[ing] two or more time phases." Those "time
phases" are referenced to "set a first region of interest (ROI) ... on each of
designated first images corresponding to the designated two or more time
phases among the time series first images" and "set a second ROI ... on
each of designated second images corresponding to the designated two or
more time phases among the time series second images."
"Time phases" are not the same instants in time. Rather, the
Specification explains, for example, that "[ t ]ime series image data is a set of
image data associated with a plurality of phases in a predetermined period
(one or more cardiac cycles)." Spec. 5:9--11. The Specification explains
that "different time series volume data [is used] to compare images before
and after [a] stress echo or before and after medical treatments or compare
images between different modalities." Id. at 1 :20-23. That is, claim 1 's
recitation of "designat[ing] two or more time phases" and "set[ting] a first ..
. ROI" and "a second ROI" relates, for example, to setting a first ROI for
images at two phases of a cardiac cycle ( e.g., before a stress echo) and
setting a second ROI for subsequent images at those two phases of the
cardiac cycle ( e.g., after the stress echo).
The additional recitation of "acquir[ing] first information relating to a
relative positional relationship between the first ROI and the second ROI for
5
Appeal 2018-001283
Application 13/018,881
each of the designated two or more time phases" and "register[ing] the
designated first images and the designated second images based on the first
information" is directed to orienting the images including the first ROI and
those including the second ROI so they may be compared to one another.
See, e.g., Spec. 13 :23-14: 19 ( discussing coordinate transformations); see
also Wash bum ,r 2 (" [T]he process of finding the correspondence between
the contents of the images is generally referred to as image registration. In
other words, image registration includes finding a geometric transform that
non-ambiguously links locations and orientations of the same objects or
parts thereof in the different images. More particularly, image registration
includes transforming the different sets of image data to a common
coordinate space.").
The subsequent features recited in claim 1 include "set[ ting] a third
ROI on each of remaining first images other than the designated first images
among the time series first images" and "set[ting] a fourth ROI on each of
remaining second images other than the designated second images among
the time series second images" using an automated process based on the first
and second ROis, respectively. That is, the third ROI is set to be similar to
the first ROI and the fourth ROI is set to be similar to the second ROI, but is
done using an automated, rather than manual, process. Using the cardiac
cycle example noted above for illustration, the third ROI would be set for
images of subsequent phases of the cardiac cycle before a stress echo and the
fourth ROI would be set for images of those subsequent phases of the
cardiac cycle after the stress echo. The automated process is specified as a
"template matching processing using, as a template, a pixel value
distribution" of the respective previously set ROI. Similar to the images
6
Appeal 2018-001283
Application 13/018,881
including the first and second ROis, the images including the third and
fourth ROis are also oriented relative to one another.
The series of images are then used to generate moving images based
on the first images ( e.g., a moving image for the before condition) and the
second images ( e.g., a moving image for the after condition). Those moving
images ( the before and after conditions) are then displayed parallel to one
another.
Rejections
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 9, 11, 16, 33, 35, 37, and 40 as a
group. Appeal Br. 11-21. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2,
4--6, 8, 9, 11, 16, 33, 35, 37, and 40 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Wash burn teaches setting the first and second
ROis for images as recited in claim 1 and registering those images (i.e.,
transforming their coordinates), but the Examiner finds that Washburn does
not specifically teach that those images are related to the same "two or more
time phases" required by claim 1. Final Act. 3--4. We agree with the
Examiner, and we note Appellants do not dispute this finding. Washburn
describes the need to align (i.e., register) different images taken of a patient
due to movement between scans. Washburn ,r 2. Washburn describes, for
example, "receiving a first image data set and at least one other image data
set" and "selecting a first point of interest in ... the first image data set," as
well as "selecting a second point of interest in the other of the ... other
image data set, where the second point of interest corresponds to the first
point of interest." Id. at ,r 6. Washburn also describes "translating [i.e.,
registering)] ... to align the first point of interest with the second point of
7
Appeal 2018-001283
Application 13/018,881
interest." Id. Washburn provides examples illustrating its image registration
including portions of the body that may not have the same cyclic nature (i.e.,
time phase) as the cardiac cycle example provided in Appellants'
embodiments. See, e.g., id. at 22 ( discussing organs including the lungs and
colon).
The Examiner finds that Holloway teaches "a similar image
registration device, wherein time series data of a heart cycle is collected and
multiple phases are designated ... and ... a[] processing unit [is] configured
to associate the set first ROI with the set second ROI for each of the plurality
of phases using vectors." Id. at 4 (citing, e.g., 8:1-9:39). We agree with the
Examiner, and again note Appellants do not dispute this finding. The cited
portion of Holloway explains, for example, that "transforms used to align
[(i.e., register)] the views can be changed to compensate for different
movements between the first and second views," providing the example of
"a stress test, [where] the patient's heart may beat harder after the stress test
than before." Holloway 8:57---60; see also id. at 7:23-25 ("It will be
understood that the alignment may be performed so as to substantially align
the views so that an effective comparison may be made."). Holloway
explains that "[t]he views can also have associated times within cycles
associated with the object being scanned," noting that "in studies of the
heart, each of the views ... can have a time associated therewith" and "[t]he
comparisons of the views may be further improved by comparing the views
that have approximately the same times associated therewith." Id. at 9:3-11.
Holloway describes the "times associated with cycles" as "includ[ing]
phases of operation." Id. at 9: 12-13.
8
Appeal 2018-001283
Application 13/018,881
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to combine the
teachings of Washburn and Holloway "because doing so would improve
comparison of two sets of data and allow for pre and post stress test data to
be compared." Final Act. 4. Based on the combined teachings of Washburn
and Holloway, the Examiner determines that "a processing circuit
configured to designate two or more time phases; set a first region of interest
(ROI) ... ; set a second ROI .. ; acquire first information ... ; [and] register
the designated first images and the designated second images based on the
first information" would have been obvious. Id. The Examiner's basis for
this determination is sound, as it is the natural application of the teachings of
Washburn's registration of images to a part of the body having time phases
associated therewith, such as the time series data of heart cycles in
Holloway. In its background discussion, Holloway, itself, explains that "it
may be difficult to compare the 'before' and 'after' images ... if the images
are not aligned with respect to each other" and that "[i]n stress-echo type
heart studies, portions of the heart can be scanned before and after a stress
test to provide corresponding before and after images of selected portions of
the heart." Holloway, 1:20-27. As discussed above, Washburn describes a
known registration process to provide the necessary alignment.
With respect to the combined teachings of Washburn and Holloway,
Appellants fail to articulate clearly any Examiner error. See Appeal Br. 12-
15. As noted above, Appellants do not dispute any of the Examiner's
findings related to Washburn's teachings. The only contention even
somewhat related to the Examiner's findings and rationale is Appellants'
allegation that Holloway "is silent regarding designating two or more time
phases and setting first and second ROis in accordance with user instruction,
9
Appeal 2018-001283
Application 13/018,881
as recited in Claim 1" and, instead, "merely discloses registration between
two image[s] acquired at different times." Appeal Br. 14. This general
allegation, without more, does not identify Examiner error, as it does not
address any particular finding or rationale articulated by the Examiner. 2
As for the additional features recited in claim 1, the Examiner cites
Chouno, for example, as teaching "template matching processing using a
pixel value distribution of an ROI of the first ROI prior to the remaining
time phases as a template." Final Act. 4. The Examiner explains that the
template matching "automatically set[ s] a remaining ROI for a remaining
time phase other than the specific phase of the plurality of time phases,
based on a position of the set ROI in the specific phase." Id. at 4--5. The
Examiner reasons that "[i]t would have been obvious ... to have combined
the teachings of Holloway and Washburn with the further teachings of
Chouno because doing so would create a device, wherein the regions of
interest of Washburn and Holloway would be automatically tracked and set
by image processing." Id. at 5. The Examiner explains that "[s]uch an
arrangement would provide an automatic system that reduces the user load
and increases the quality of region of interest determination" and "it would
have been obvious to automate the manual process of Holloway and
Washburn." Id.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's findings related to Chouno.
Rather, Appellants again respond by attacking alleged findings not made by
the Examiner. See Appeal Br. 16-1 7 ( arguing, for example, that Chouno
2 There are numerous other contentions addressing alleged findings and
rationale that are not findings or rationale relied upon by the Examiner. We
do not address such contentions specifically because they are not relevant to
the rejection before us.
10
Appeal 2018-001283
Application 13/018,881
does not teaching setting a "fourth ROI," the related "second information"
and "register[ing]" or "generating ... moving images"). Appellants contend
that "[t]he idea to obtain and register the third and fourth ROis at the
remaining time phases is found only in Applicants claims." Id. at 18.
Those contentions are not persuasive. As noted above, the Examiner
relies on Chouno's teaching of template matching to automate setting RO Is
on images from subsequent time phases in both the before and after images.
Final Act. 4--5. The result of this automated ROI setting is the setting of
third and fourth ROis as recited in the claim.
The Examiner cites Halmann and Kawagishi for the remaining
features of claim 1, which recite "generat[ing] a first moving image" and "a
second moving image ... and caus[ing] a display to display the first moving
image and the second moving image in parallel." The Examiner finds that
"Halmann discloses a similar ultrasound imaging method, wherein multiple
snap shots are recorded and played as a movie clip and teaches to a skilled
artisan that both the first and second images should be displayed as a
movie." Final Act. 6 ( citing Halmann ,r 34 ). The Examiner reasons that
"[i]t would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at time of the
invention to have combined the teachings of Holloway and Halmann
because doing so would predictably play the images of Holloway as a movie
so that a user could grasp the motion of the heart over an entire cycle." Id.
The Examiner also finds that "Kawagishi discloses that first and second sets
with matched regions of interest should be displayed in parallel." Id. ( citing
Kawagishi ,r,r 95-101, Figs. 5-8). The Examiner reasons that "[i]t would
have been obvious to one of skill in the art at time of the invention to have
11
Appeal 2018-001283
Application 13/018,881
combined the teachings of Holloway and Kawagishi because doing so would
predictably allow a user to compare images." Id. We agree.
Again, Appellants do not dispute the specific findings and rationale
provided by the Examiner, choosing, instead, to address issues not presented
by the Examiner's rejection. Appeal Br. 18-20.
For the reasons set forth above, we are not apprised of Examiner error
in the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 9, 11, 16, 33, 35, 37, and 40.
Appellants do not present separate arguments regarding the rejections
of claims 15, 19-31, and 34. Accordingly, we also are not apprised of
Examiner error in the rejections of those claims for the reasons discussed
above relative to the rejection of claim 1.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 9,
11, 15-31, 33-35, and 37--40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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
12