Ex Parte Nakauchi et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 28, 2019

14347916 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/347,916 03/27/2014 Shouichi Nakauchi
22850 7590 04/01/2019
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.
432637US 4663
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, HIEN NGOC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2019 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):
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 SHOUICHI NAKAUCHI, TAKASHI KOY AKUMARU,
TAKASHI MASUDA, TAKESHI OBARA, and NAOKI YONEYAMA
Appeal2018-006602 1
Application 14/347,9162
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of
claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11-13, and 17-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Jan. 18, 2018), the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Apr. 3, 2018), and the Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed May 19, 2017).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Toshiba Medical
Systems Corporation. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-006602
Application 14/347,916
BACKGROUND
The Specification discloses that "[t]he embodiments of the present
invention relate to an ultrasound diagnosis apparatus." Spec. ,r 1.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 13, and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. An ultrasound diagnosis apparatus comprising:
scanner circuitry configured to scan a subject with
ultrasound waves through an ultrasound probe;
signal processing circuity configured to implement signal
processing on signals from the scanner circuitry;
display controller circuitry configured to cause a display
to display images based on an output from the signal processing
circuitry;
a storage configured to previously store first relevant
information in which operation content of at least one of the
scanner circuitry, the signal processing circuitry, and the display
controller circuitry in a past test is related to a first relative
position which is a relative position of the ultrasound probe for
the subject in the past test, and first somatotype information
representing a somatotype of the subject in the past test;
detector circuitry configured to detect a second relative
position which is a relative position of the ultrasound probe for
the subject in a present test and second somatotype information
representing the somatotype of the subject in the present test;
collator circuitry configured to collate the first relative
position represented in the first relevant information and the
second somatotype information detected by the detector
circuitry, the collator circuitry further comprising a relevant
information creator configured to create third relevant
information in which a third relative position corresponding to
the first relative position for the second somatotype information
is related to the operation content based on the collation result
resulted from the collator circuitry and the first relevant
2
Appeal 2018-006602
Application 14/347,916
information, and the collator circuitry further configured to
collate the second relative position and the third relative position;
and
controller circuitry configured to control at least one of the
scanner circuitry, the signal processing circuitry, and the display
controller circuitry based on the operation content related to the
third relative position, when the second relative position and the
third relative position are matched in the collation by the collator
circuitry.
Br., Claims App. i-ii.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 12, 13, 18-20, and 22-25 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Ohtake3 in view of Lu. 4
2. The Examiner rejects claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Ohtake in view of Lu and Rhodes. 5
3. The Examiner rejects claims 7, 9, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ohtake in view of Lu and Maad. 6
4. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Ohtake in view of Lu, Rhodes, and Maad.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
With respect to this rejection, Appellants argue only that Lu is non-
analogous art because Lu relates to a different field of endeavor and is not
reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors in developing the
3 Ohtake, US 2005/0119569 Al, pub. June 2, 2005.
4 Lu, US 2008/0130015 Al, pub. June 5, 2008.
5 Rhodes, US 8,184,069 Bl, iss. May 22, 2012.
6 Maad, US 2011/0135190 Al, pub. June 9, 2011.
3
Appeal 2018-006602
Application 14/347,916
claimed invention. Br. 10. Appellants assert that the relevant field of
endeavor is ultrasound diagnosis apparatuses. Id. Appellants assert that "Lu
is directed to a three-dimensional measuring apparatus, method, and
program for acquiring many pieces of information on a pattern of light by a
single projection and highly accurate three-dimensional information at high
speed" or "to three-dimensional measuring apparatus for acquiring many
pieces of information based upon the projection of light." Id. at 10-11.
Regarding the problem faced by the inventors, Appellants assert that
the Specification explicitly reflects the problem faced. Id. at 11 (citing
Spec. ,r 5). Specifically, Appellants assert that the problem faced is related
to recreating operation content of an ultrasound diagnosis apparatus or
recreating relative position of a subject or ultrasound apparatus in order to
perform a subsequent test under the same conditions as those tested in the
past. Id. at 12. Appellants contend that Lu does not discuss "recreating
operation content of an ultrasound diagnosis apparatus and a relative
position of an ultrasound probe for a subject, in order to test under the same
conditions as the one in the past." Id. Appellants further contend that Lu
does not discuss positioning of an ultrasound probe and "Lu merely teaches
a camera for measuring the body surface of human using a projection of
light." Id. at 12.
As discussed below, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection by
this argument.
We apply a two-prong test for determining whether a prior art
reference is analogous: (1) whether the reference is from the same field of
endeavor as the claimed invention, and (2) if the reference is not within the
same field of endeavor, whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the
4
Appeal 2018-006602
Application 14/347,916
particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Klein, 64 7
F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "A reference is reasonably pertinent if,
even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's
endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals,
logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in
considering his problem." In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed.Cir.1992). As
discussed below, we determine that Lu is at least reasonably pertinent to the
problem addressed by the inventors here.
We agree with Appellants that the problems faced by the inventors
include problems related to both recreating operational content of an
ultrasound diagnois apparatus and also recreating the relative position of an
ultrasound probe in order to test and retest a subject under the same
conditions. See Spec. ,r,r 3, 5. In particular, the Specification discloses that
"[i]t has been difficult ... to recreate the relative position, since the
ultrasound probe is manually operated by an operator." Id. at ,r 5.
Lu provides a three-dimensional measuring apparatus that acquires
"highly accurate three-dimensional information" for an object by capturing
and processing an image of the object at high speed. See Lu Abstract. Lu
discloses that the device is applicable to the field of medical care because "in
recent years there have been demands for acquiring three-dimensional shape
data not only regarding the torso but also regarding the entire human body."
Id. at ,r 2. Lu further discloses that because "the three-dimensional
information on a human body enables the measurement of a somatotype, the
apparatus is also applicable to ... health care." Id. at ,r 99. Lu also
discloses that the apparatus "preferably includes position correcting means
for correcting the position of a measurement object in an image acquired by
5
Appeal 2018-006602
Application 14/347,916
the imaging means," which "makes it possible to make three-dimensional
measurements with high accuracy even on a measurement object other than
a stationary object," such as "on a human or an animal for which it is
difficult to completely keep still during measurements." Id. at ,r 17. We
determine that Lu logically would have commended itself to the present
inventors' attention when considering problems related to recreating the
relative position of an ultrasound probe because of Lu's focus on high speed
and high accuracy imaging, which may be employed in the field of medical
imaging, along with position correcting. Thus, we determine that Luis
reasonably pertinent to the particularproblem with which the present
inventor were involved, as identified above, and, therefore, analogous prior
art ..
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection
over Ohtake and Lu. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3,
12, 13, 18-20, and 22-25.
Rejection 2
With respect to this rejection, in addition to the arguments addressed
above with respect to Lu, Appellants also argue that Rhodes is non-
analogous art. Br. 13-14. Specifically, Appellants assert that Rhodes is not
in the same field of endeavor because "Rhodes is directed to transmitting,
receiving, and displaying data for a head mounted display." Id. at 13.
Appellants assert that Rhodes is not pertinent to the problems faced by the
inventors here because Rhodes "merely teaches prioritization of sending data
to a heads-up display" and "is not directed to or relevant to recreating
operation content of an ultrasound diagnosis apparatus" or "to positioning an
6
Appeal 2018-006602
Application 14/347,916
ultrasound probe at a past relative position for a subject to recreate a relative
position." Id. at 14.
The Examiner finds that Rhodes is reasonably pertinent to the
problem faced by the inventors. Ans. 19. Specifically, the Examiner finds:
Id.
The inventor wants to display information on a transparent
display device and make it wearable by the user. Rhodes
discloses a head-up display device that is transparent and
wearable by the user. Rhodes discloses a device that perform[ s]
the same function as the inventor's device and solves the same
problem.
As discussed below, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument
that Rhodes is non-analogous.
Rhodes discloses a heads-up display that may be a head-mounted
display, e.g., a display incorporated into a pair of glasses. Rhodes col. 1,
11. 28-34. Rhodes discloses a system for receiving data regarding an image
of interest within the field of view of a device along with "prioritization
instructions indicating a priority of contents of the image of interest." Id. at
col. 2, 11. 26-30. Rhodes discloses using a heads-up display that "may be
configured to interpret received data and display images, text, or other
information associated with the data" including information regarding a
priority tracker that tracks a user's "gaze direction" in order to identify
images of interest. Id. at col. 6, 11. 4--20. Rhodes further discloses that the
display may be used to track regions of interest for the user so that
information of interest can be provided in the display for the user. See id. at
col. 13, 11. 16-26.
The present Specification discloses the use of a wearable display in
the form of eyewear that presents a position index display and/or a posture
7
Appeal 2018-006602
Application 14/347,916
index display to the operator of the device in order to display characteristic
points of a subject to the operator for the purpose of properly positioning the
subject. Spec. ,r,r 27, 29. Thus, the display presents information of interest,
i.e., positional information related to a subject, to the operator. We agree
with the Examiner that Rhodes' s disclosure of a heads up display that
provides information regarding images or regions of interest to the user
would have commended itself to the present inventors' attention in
considering problems related to the proper positioning of a subject. Thus,
we determine that Rhodes is analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent
to the problem being solved by the inventors, particularly with respect to the
use of a heads-up display as described in the Specification.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim
21, and thus, we sustain this rejection.
Rejection 3
With respect to this rejection, in addition to the arguments addressed
above with respect to Lu, Appellants also argue that Maad is non-analogous
art. Br. 15-17. Appellants assert that Maad is not in the same field of
endeavor because "Maad is directed to a positioning system using pattern
projector configured to project a ... pattern onto a surface of an object and a
detector or camera responsive to the projected ... pattern." Id. at 15.
Appellants also assert that Maad is not reasonably pertinent to the inventor's
problem because Maad does not discuss recreating operation content for an
ultrasound apparatus or a relative position of an ultrasound probe and that
"Maad merely teaches the projection of a light pattern, the detection of that
light pattern, and generating correction signals based upon a stored
reference." Id. at 16-17.
8
Appeal 2018-006602
Application 14/347,916
The Examiner finds that Maad is in the same field of endeavor,
medical diagnostics, and is pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors.
Ans. 20 (citing Maad ,r 29, Figs. 1, 7-11). The Examiner finds that Maad is
reasonable pertinent because "[t]he inventor[s] and Maad both try to project
the current and past position of an object or subject using posture/projected
information." Id. We agree that Maad is at least reasonably pertinent to the
problem faced by the inventors here. Maad discloses embodiments that "are
advantageously employed within the medical field and in particular when
positioning a patient ... for the purpose of conducting diagnostic imaging."
Maad ,r 29. Maad addresses problems associated with patient positioning in
diagnostic imaging and is thus reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by
the present inventors, as discussed above. Thus, Maad logically would have
commended itself to the present inventors' attention in considering problems
related to the proper positioning of a subject. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded of error and we sustain the rejection of claims 7, 9, 11, and 17.
Rejection 4
Appellants do not present any separate arguments with respect to this
rejection and rely solely on the arguments discussed above. Thus, for the
reasons provided above, we also sustain the rejection of claim 8.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11-13, and 17-25.
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
9