Ex Parte Miyasato

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2019

13634181 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/634,181 09/11/2012 Takuro Miyasato
34904 7590 02/21/2019
CANON U.S.A. INC. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DIVISION
15975 ALTON PARKWAY
IRVINE, CA 92618-3731
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.
10076494WOUS01 1063
EXAMINER
DIETERLE, JENNIFER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2019 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):
skalminov@cusa.canon.com
IPDocketing@cusa.canon.com
mkavetsky@cusa.canon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte T AKURO MIYASATO 1
Appeal2017---006748
Application 13/634, 181
Technology Center 3700
Before TONI R. SCHEINER, JOHN G. NEW, and JOHN E. SCHNEIDER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellant states that the real party-in-interest is Canon Kabushiki Kaisha.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017---006748
Application 13/634,181
SUMMARY
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 27, 30-36, 40, 41, 51, and 53-73.
Specifically, claims 27, 30, 31, 35, 36, 40, 41, 51, 53, 54, 58---62, 65, 66, and
69-72 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Nakata et al. (US 5,781,294, July 14, 1998)
("Nakata"), Fukutani et al. (US 2008/0306371 Al, December 11, 2008)
("Fukutani"), and Chen WO 2009/58146 A2, December 30, 2009) ("Chen").
Claims 32 and 55 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being obvious over the combination of Nakata, Fukutani, Chen,
and Bakker et al. (US 2010/0056916 Al, March 4, 2010 ("Bakker").
Claims 33 and 56 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being obvious over the combination of Nakata, Fukutani, Chen,
and Nagae et al. US 2009/0005685 Al, January 1, 2009) ("Nagae").
Claims 34 and 57 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being obvious over the combination of Nakata, Fukutani, Chen,
and Urano et al. (US 2010/0004875 Al, January 7, 2010) ("Urano").
Claims 63 and 64 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being obvious over the combination of Nakata, Fukutani, Chen,
and Chamberland et al. (US 2008/0221647 Al, September 11, 2008)
("Chamberland").
Claims 68 and 73 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being obvious over the combination of Nakata, Fukutani, Chen,
and Wang et al. (US 2011/0142316 Al, June 16, 2011) ("Wang").
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
2
Appeal2017---006748
Application 13/634,181
NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant's invention is directed to a photoacoustic imaging
apparatus. Abstract.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 27 is representative of the claims on appeal and recites:
27. A method for acquiring subject information comprising
the steps of:
acquiring first image data by using an electrical signal
acquired by converting an acoustic wave generated by irradiating
a subject with light;
acquiring a surface-illuminance distribution of the light
incident on a surface of the subject by using information about a
surface shape of the subject and an intensity distribution of light
for irradiation to the subject;
setting, on the surface of the subject in a numerical space,
an imaginary light source having a light intensity distribution that
is the same as the surface-illuminance distribution;
acquiring an internal light intensity distribution inside the
subject by calculating light propagation inside the subject in the
numerical space, of light emitted from the imaginary light
source; and
acquiring second image data based on the first image data
and the internal light intensity distribution inside the subject.
App. Br. 29.
3
Appeal2017---006748
Application 13/634,181
ISSUE AND ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded by the Examiner's findings and conclusion that
the claims on appeal are prima facie obvious over the combined cited prior
art. We address Appellant's dispositive arguments below.
A.
Issue
Rejection of independent claims 27, 36, and 51 as obvious over
Nakata, Fukutani, and Chen
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the combined
cited prior art references neither teach nor suggest the limitations of the
claims requiring: (1) acquiring a surface-illuminance distribution of light
incident on a surface of the subject by using information about a surface
shape of the subject and an intensity distribution of light for irradiation to the
subject; (2) setting, on the surface of the subject in a numerical space, an
imaginary light source having a light intensity distribution that is the same as
the surface-illuminance distribution; and (3) acquiring an internal light
intensity distribution inside the subject by calculating light propagation
inside the subject in the numerical space, of light emitted from the imaginary
light source. App. Br. 8.
Analysis
The Examiner finds that Nakata teaches a method of acquiring
subject information comprising acquiring first image data by using an
electrical signal acquired by converting an acoustic wave generated by
irradiating a specimen with light. Final Act. 2 (citing Nakata cols. 17-18, 11.
65--42, col. 10, 11. 10-31 ). The Examiner finds that Nakata also teaches
4
Appeal2017---006748
Application 13/634,181
acquiring distributions of the reflections and undulations of the light incident
on a surface of the specimen by using information about a surface shape of
the subject, and an intensity distribution of light for irradiation to the
specimen. Id. at 2-3 (citing Nakata cols. 5-6, 11. 55-18, col. 4, 11. 47-52,
col. 5, 11. 22-27).
The Examiner finds that Nakata further teaches acquiring an internal
light intensity distribution inside the specimen and acquiring second image
data, based on the first image data and the internal light intensity distribution
inside the specimen. Id. at 3 (citing Nakata col. 4, 11. 47-52, col. 24, 11. 3-
15).
The Examiner acknowledges that Nakata does not expressly teach
details regarding irradiating a subject, obtaining a surface-illuminance
distribution, or an imaginary light source. Final Act. 3. However, the
Examiner finds, Fukutani discloses irradiating a subject, but does not
expressly disclose details concerning an imaginary light source. Id. ( citing
Fukutani 14).
The Examiner finds that Chen teaches the limitations of claim 27
reciting: "setting, on the surface of the subject in a numerical space, an
imaginary (simulated) light source having a light intensity distribution that ls
the same as the surface-illuminance distribution" and "calculating light
propagation inside the subject in the numerical space, of light emitted from
the imaginary light source." Final Act. 3 (citing Chen ,r 64).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art, upon understanding the teachings of cited combined
prior art, to irradiate a subject, as disclosed by Fukutani, for the purpose of
5
Appeal2017---006748
Application 13/634,181
obtaining a high-resolution distribution of optical characteristic values.
Final Act. 3 ( citing Fukutani ,r 14 ).
The Examiner further concludes that it would have been obvious that
a surface-illuminance distribution would be obtained, because this is an
inherent consequence of photoacoustic imaging. Final Act. 3 ( citing
Fukutani ,r 8). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nakata, Fukutani
and Chen to employ an imaginary light source, as disclosed by Chen, for the
purpose of extending a field of view. Id. at 3--4 (citing Chen ,r 64).
1. Nakata
Appellant argues that Nakata neither teaches nor suggests "acquiring
an internal light intensity distribution inside the subject," or "acquiring
second image data based on the first image data and the internal light
intensity distribution inside the subject," as the Examiner finds. App. Br. 9.
Appellant asserts that Nakata teaches that an internal crack of the sample 47
can be recognized by checking a distribution of the phase shift of a
photoacoustic signal, which represents an undulation distribution at the
surface of the sample 47. Id. (citing Nakata col. 24, 11. 3-15). In other
words, Appellant argues, Nakata discloses that an internal crack can be
recognized using a distribution of the phase of a photoacoustic signal, which
represents distribution of an undulation below the surface of the sample,
without using other information. Id. at 9-10. For this reason, Appellant
contends, it is not necessary to the teachings of Nakata to acquire an internal
light intensity distribution to recognize the internal crack (i.e., undulation).
6
Appeal2017---006748
Application 13/634,181
Id. According to Appellant, Nakata fails to disclose acquiring the internal
light intensity distribution in order to recognize the internal crack. Id.
Appellant argues further that Nakata also fails to teach acquiring
second image data based on the first image data and the internal light
intensity distribution inside the subject, because Nakata fails to disclose
acquiring the internal light intensity distribution. Id.
Appellant next points to Nakata's teaching that:
[I]t is possible with only one detector to simultaneously detect a
total of four items of information relative to the surface and the
inside of the sample, namely, the reflectance distribution of the
sample surface, the undulations distribution of the sample
surface, the amplitude distribution of the photoacoustic signal,
and the phase distribution of the photoacoustic signal.
App. Br. 10 (quoting Nakata col. 6, 11. 4--12). Appellant contends that
Nakata teaches, at most, detecting and obtaining a reflectance and
undulation distributions of the sample surface, and detecting and obtaining
amplitude and phase distribution of the photoacoustic signal. Id. However,
Appellant asserts, Nakata neither teaches nor suggests "acquiring an internal
light intensity distribution inside the subject" or "acquiring second image
data based on the first image data and the internal light intensity distribution
inside the subject." App. Br. 10 (emphasis omitted).
With respect to Appellant's argument that Nakata does not teach:
"acquiring an internal light intensity distribution inside the subject," the
Examiner responds, that, absent an equation provided by Appellant's
Specification, it is difficult to know the definition of "light intensity
distribution." Ans. 15. The Examiner further finds that, contrary to
Appellant's assertion that Nakata does not disclose "acquiring second image
7
Appeal2017---006748
Application 13/634,181
data based on the first image data and the internal light intensity distribution
inside the subject," Nakata teaches in col. 1, 11. 17-25, that:
The present invention relates to a method and an apparatus for
detecting a photoacoustic signal to information relative to the
surface and the subsurface of a sample using photoacoustic or
photothermal effect, and more particularly to a method and an
apparatus for detecting a photoacoustic signal devised to
effectively correct abnormality of phase shifts by phase jumps at
specified points of the sample when a photoacoustic signal is
detected at those points of the sample.
App. Br. 15. The Examiner further finds that Nakata teaches obtaining a
second distribution (image) after correction. Id. ( citing Nakata col. 24, 11. 3-
15). The Examiner finds that an image is equivalent to a two-, three-, or
four-dimensional distribution. Id.
In response to Appellant's argument that "the surface-illuminance
distribution