Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2017

13320910 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 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.
13/320,910 11/17/2011 Xin Liu 2009P00869WOUS 7721
24737 7590 11/17/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue CHANG, DANIEL
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2489
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2017 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):
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 XIN LIU and LUIS FELIPE GUTIERREZ
Appeal 2017-001545
Application 13/320,9101
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 13—21
are withdrawn from consideration.
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Koninklijke Philips N.V..
App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2017-001545
Application 13/320,910
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellants’ disclosed invention “relates to imaging tools, and more
particularly to systems and methods for registering and calibrating an
endoscope during endoscopic procedures.” Spec. 1:5—6. Claims 1 and 8,
which are illustrative, read as follows:
1. A method for image-based registration between
images, comprising:
locating a feature in a pre-operative image of a subject
acquired by an imaging device having a first pose;
comparing appearances of real-time images which
include the feature taken with a tracked scope that includes a
tracking sensor which is tracked by a tracking system with the
pre-operative image taken of the feature to find a real-time
image that visually matches the pre-operative image;
determining a tracked pose of the scope for the real-time
image that visually matches the pre-operative image by the
tracking system; and
registering a closest match real-time image to the pre­
operative image to determine a transformation matrix between
the first pose of the imaging device and the tracked pose of the
scope for the real-time image so that the transformation matrix
permits tracking real-time image coordinates using the tracking
sensor in pre-operative image space.
8. A system for image-based registration between
images, comprising:
an endoscope including a camera for collecting real-time
images during a procedure, the endoscope including a tracking
sensor which is tracked by a tracking system for locating a tip
of the endoscope; and
a computer implemented program stored in memory
media configured to compare appearances of a set of real-time
images taken by the camera with an appearance of a
2
Appeal 2017-001545
Application 13/320,910
preoperative image acquired by an imaging device having a
first pose for a same subject to find a closest match between the
real-time images and the pre-operative image, the program
being configured to determine a transformation matrix between
a camera pose of the endoscope for a real-time image that is the
closest match and the first pose of imaging device to enable
endoscopic tracking using pre-operative image space free from
the use of contact markers.
The Rejections2
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Higgins et al. US 2007 /0015997 A1 Jan. 18, 2007
Gattani et al. US 2008/0071142 Al Mar. 20, 2008
Nakamura US 2008/0097156 Al Apr. 24, 2008
Ziv Yaniv and Kevin Cleary, Image-Guided Procedures: A Review,
Tech. Rep. CAIMR TR-2006-3, Georgetown University, Imaging
Science and Information Systems Center, Washington, DC, (Apr. 2006),
available at http://www. yanivresearch. info/writtenMaterial/CAIMR-TR-
2006-3.pdf (hereinafter “Yaniv”).
Claims 1—2, 4—5, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)3 as
being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (hereinafter “Higgins”) and Gattani et
al. (hereinafter “Gattani”). See Final Act. 6—10.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Higgins, Gattani, and Yaniv. See Final Act. 11—12.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Higgins, Gattani, and Nakamura. See Final Act. 12.
2 A rejection of claims 1—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, (Final
Act. 5) is withdrawn (Adv. Act. 2).
3 All prior art rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. in effect prior
to the effective date of the Feahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011. Final
Act 2.
3
Appeal 2017-001545
Application 13/320,910
Claims 8 and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gattani and Higgins. See Final Act. 13—16
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gattani, Higgins, and Yaniv. See Final Act. 16—17.
The Record
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs (“App.
Br.” filed Feb. 10, 2016; “Reply Br.” filed Nov. 3, 2016) and the
Specification (“Spec.” filed Nov. 17, 2011) for the positions of Appellants
and the Office Actions (“Final Act.” mailed Sept. 24, 2015; Adv. Act.
mailed Dec. 14, 2015) and Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” mailed Sept. 26,
2016) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the Examiner. Only
those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Briefs have not
been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
ISSUES
The pivotal issues presented by Appellants’ arguments are as follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Higgins and
Gattani teaches or suggests “comparing appearances of real-time images
which include the feature taken with a . . . scope . . . with the pre-operative
image taken of the feature to find a real-time image that visually matches the
pre-operative image” (emphases added) (the “claim 1 argued limitation”), as
recited in claim 1.
Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Higgins and
Gattani teaches or suggests “a computer implemented program . . .
4
Appeal 2017-001545
Application 13/320,910
configured to compare appearances of a set of real-time images taken by the
camera with an appearance of a preoperative image acquired by an imaging
device ... to find a closest match between the real-time images and the pre­
operative image” (the “claim 8 argued limitation”), as recited in claim 8?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner finds Higgins teaches the claim 1 argued limitation.
Final Act. 7 (citing Higgins Tflf 23, 26—27). The Examiner explains as
follows:
Higgins discloses in Paragraphs [26—27] [] image registration of
the virtual image with the current real image. Image registration
is identifying parameters that bring spatial correspondence
between two images, in this case, a virtual image and current real
image. Determining parameters that further determine the
corresponding points between the two images indicates that a
comparison must be made between the two images in terms of
identifying corresponding features, or points, which are
indicative of the real-time images’ appearance. Furthermore,
Higgins discloses that the pose of the bronchoscope is identified
that will make the virtual image look the same as the current real
image. By re-rendering a virtual image to look the same as the
current real image, a visual match is identified between a real
image and a virtual image. When this occurs, a real-time image
is found that visually matches the virtual, or pre-operative,
image.
Ans. 15 (emphasis added).
Appellants contend as follows:
Even assuming arguendo that the initial image registration
between the virtual image and the current real image involves
determining corresponding points between the images, there is
no comparison of the appearances of a plurality of real-time
images with a pre-operative image to find a specific real-time
5
Appeal 2017-001545
Application 13/320,910
image that visually matches the pre-operative image. Instead, the
virtual image, which is the image cited by the Examiner as being
the pre-operative image, is generated based on the current real
image after the real image is acquired without comparing a
plurality of current real images with the virtual image
whatsoever.
Reply Br. 7.
Appellants argue that Higgins’s “virtual image cannot reasonably be
considered a pre-operative image.” Reply Br. 6. Although it is true that
Higgins’s virtual image is rendered by manipulating, rather than simply
presenting, the data obtained from a series of CT4 scans (Higgins 126) or
“slices” {id. 1 8), Higgins teaches that the CT data is “previously acquired
image data [that] may be derived from virtual image data, including
computerized tomographic (CT) slices” {id.). In other words the virtual
image data is acquired before Higgins bronchoscopy procedure, i.e., pre-
operatively. See App. Br. 9—10 (“[T]he term ‘pre-operative image’ is
commonly understood by persons with ordinary skill in the art as meaning
an image that is acquired before an interventional procedure.”) Accordingly,
we agree with the Examiner that Higgins’s virtual image is encompassed by
the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “pre-operative image.” See, e.g.,
Adv. Act. 2.
Appellants contend “[t]he process of finding corresponding points
between a real-time image and a virtual image is completely different than
comparing appearances of real-time images with a preoperative image to
find a specific real-time image that visually matches the pre-operative
image.” App. Br. 11. We disagree. Higgins teaches that the virtual image
4 Computer tomographic. Spec. 1:20; accord Higgins 8,
6
Appeal 2017-001545
Application 13/320,910
is re-rendered to “look[] like” a real image. Higgins 126. This re-rendering
is done, at least in part, “by making use of. . . the visual similarity [i.e., the
comparative appearances] between the virtual image and real images.” Id.
We find Higgins teaches “comparing appearances of real-time images . . .
with the pre-operative image,” as recited in the claim 1 argued limitation.
Nevertheless, the passages cited by the Examiner do not teach the
claim 1 argued limitation. In Higgins the virtual image (i.e., the recited
“pre-operative image”) is re-rendered to match the real time video frame
image acquired by the scope. See Higgins 26—28. In the terms used in
the argued limitation, and in accordance with the Examiner’s mapping, in
Higgins a “pre-operative image” is “found” that matches a “real-time
image.” In other words, Higgins starts with the “real-time image” and does
a comparison to “find” the “pre-operative image.” The argued limitation of
claim 1, however, recites exactly the opposite—“finding” a “real-time
image” that matches the “pre-operative image.” In other words, the claim 1
argued limitation starts with the “pre-operative image” and doing a
comparison to “find” a “real-time image.”
Thus, the Examiner incorrectly characterizes the prior art by stating
that in Higgins “a real-time image is found that visually matches the virtual,
or pre-operative, image” (Ans. 15). Furthermore, the Examiner provides no
explanation as to why one of ordinary skill in would reverse the comparison
described by Higgins.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of
independent claim 1 and claims 2—7, which depend, directly or indirectly,
from claim 1.
7
Appeal 2017-001545
Application 13/320,910
Claim 8
Appellants contend that Higgins, with or without Gattani, fails to
teach the claim 8 argued limitation for the same reasons that Higgins fails to
teach the claim 1 argued limitation. See App. Br. 18—19. We disagree.
As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner that Higgins teaches
comparing the appearances of a virtual image (i.e., a “pre-operative”) image
and a real image acquired during an endoscopic procedure in order to find
(i.e., “re-render”) a best match in appearance between the a virtual image
and the real image. However, unlike the claim 1 argued limitation, the
claim 8 argued limitation merely requires performing the comparison,
without specifying which image is the starting image, and which image is
“found” as a result of the comparison. Therefore, the reasons we found the
claim 1 argued limitation to not be taught by Higgins do not apply to the
broader claim 8 argued limitation, and Appellants have provided no
additional particularized arguments regarding claim 8.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claim 8, and claims 9—12,
which depend from claim 8 and were not separately argued with
particularity.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 8—12 is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—7 is reversed.
8
Appeal 2017-001545
Application 13/320,910
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9