Ex Parte Vion et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 25, 201613056149 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/056,149 01127/2011 Michael Vion 24737 7590 05/27/2016 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 465 Columbus A venue Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 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. 2008P00988WOUS 1471 EXAMINER RUSSELL, RICHARD M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2618 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/27/2016 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 PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL VION and ALLEN SNOOK Appeal2014-005236 Application 13/056,149 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ERIC B. CHEN, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-005236 Application 13/056,149 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-8 and 11-15. Claims 9 and 10 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to automatically meshing a volume of an object in an ultrasound imaging system. (Abstract.) Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitation in italics: 1. A method of automatically meshing a volume in an ultrasound imaging system, said method comprising the following steps: a) acquiring a set of 3D image data of an object; b) selecting by a user a first surface of interest in the 3D image data, said first surface of interest comprising a first slice of the object; c) automatically determining a main axis of the first slice of the object in the first surface of interest; d) defining a first set of planes of the 3D image data, these planes being not parallel with the main axis while being parallel with respect to each other, with a given distance between two successive planes along the main axis; e) for at least two planes of the first set of planes, each comprising a respective second slice of the object, automatically drawing a contour of each respective second slice; and t) automatically meshing the volume of the object, by stacking the contours drawn in said at least two planes of the first set of planes along the main axis and by separating these planes by said given distance. Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 11, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sumanaweera et al. (US 6,482, 161 B 1, issued Nov. 19, 2002). 2 Appeal2014-005236 Application 13/056,149 Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Sumanaweera and Baumann et al. (US 2006/0291705 Al, published Dec. 28, 2006). Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Sumanaweera and Grunwald (US 6,945,938 B2, issued Sept. 20, 2005). Claims 6, 7, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Sumanaweera and Gerard et al. (US 7,043,062 B2, issued May 9, 2006). § 102 Rejection---Sumanaweera First, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument (App. Br. 7-8; see also Reply Br. 2-3) that Sumanaweera does not disclose the limitation "selecting by a user a first surface of interest in the 3D image data, said first surface of interest comprising a first slice of the object," as recited in independent claim 1. We agree with the Examiner's finding that the region of interest selected by the user of Sumanaweera discloses the disputed limitation. (Ans. 4, 18.) In particular, the Examiner found that "[t]he Sumanaweera 'region of interest' equates with a 'first slice of the object' [as claimed] because both refer to a portion of interest of the whole ultrasound image." (Ans. 18.) Sumanaweera "relates to a medical diagnostic ultrasound system and method for vessel structure analysis." (Col. 1, 11. 7-8.) Sumanaweera explains that "[t]he user designates a region of interest on a displayed ultrasound image," for example, "pixels associated with the enclosed 3 Appeal2014-005236 Application 13/056,149 Figure 5 of Sumanaweera illustrates that center axes 510 are determined by connecting end points 502 or 504 and 506. (Col. 9, 11. 5-7.) Because Sumanaweera explains that the "region of interest" includes center axis 510 (col. 4, 11. 27-33; see also Fig. 5) and such center axes 510 are geometrically defined as an intersection of two or more planes, Sumanaweera discloses in the selection of main axis 510, the limitations of "selecting by a user a first surface of interest in the 3D image data, said first surface of interest comprising a first slice of the object" and "automatically determining a main axis of the first slice of the object in the first surface of interest." We also note the explanation in Sumanaweera that "[t]he user may indicate a region of interest for ... analysis" and "[i]In response ... the system 100 automatically determines the center axis." (Col. 6, 11. 8-10.) 4 Appeal2014-005236 Application 13/056,149 Appellants argue that "Sumanaweera determines a center or medial axis for a blood vessel by assigning a determined center of flow using the ultrasound data" but "Sumanaweera does not teach determining a main axis in a planar slice of an object being imaged using ultrasound, let alone determining a main axis of the first slice of the object in the first surface of interest, as claimed." (App. Br. 7-8; see also Reply Br. 2-3.) However, as discussed previously, because Sumanaweera explains that the "region of interest" includes center axes 510 (col. 4, 11. 27-32; see also Fig. 5) and that such center axes 510 are geometrically defined as an intersection of two or more planes, Sumanaweera discloses the limitation "slice of the object" in its explanation that the user designates a region of interest corresponding to center axis 510. Second, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument (App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 3--4) that Sumanaweera does not disclose the limitation "defining a first set of planes of the 3D image data, these planes being not parallel with the main axis while being parallel one with respect to each other, with a given distance between two successive planes along the main axis," as recited in independent claim 1. We agree with the Examiner's findings that the planes defined by each cross-section perpendicular to a central axis for the vessel of Sumanaweera, as illustrated in Figure 5, describe the cited limitation. (Ans. 5, 18.) Figure 5 of Sumanaweera illustrates that central axes 510 intersect cross-sections 514 and 516 (col. 9, 11. 47--49) and planes 518 and 520 (col. 10, 11. 25-27). Sumanaweera explains that "[fJor each cross-section 514, 516, a plane is defined that is perpendicular to the central axis 51 O" 5 Appeal2014-005236 Application 13/056,149 (col. 9, 11. 47--49) and that "planes 518, 520 [are] perpendicular to the center axes 51 O" (col. 10, 1. 27). Because Sumanaweera explains that cross-section 516 (i.e., point C) and plane 520 (i.e., point A) are both perpendicular to central axis 510, as illustrated in Figure 5, Sumanaweera discloses the limitation "defining a first set of planes of the 3D image data, these planes being not parallel with the main axis while being parallel one with respect to each other, with a given distance between two successive planes along the main axis." Appellants argue that "[t]here is no defining of a set of planes which are parallel to each other" (App. Br. 7) because "Sumanaweera simply does not expressly teach parallel planes, let alone the planes as claimed" (Reply Br. 3--4). However, as discussed previously, and as illustrated in Figure 5 of Sumanaweera, cross-section 516 and plane 520 are parallel because both cross-section 516 and plane 520 are perpendicular to the same central axis 510. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 2, 4, and 8 depend from claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Independent claim 11 recites limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to this claim. We sustain the rejection of claim 11, as well as dependent claims 12 and 13, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. 6 Appeal2014-005236 Application 13/056,149 § 103 Rejection---Sumanaweera and Baumann Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent claim 3 separately (App. Br. 11-12), the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue "[c]laim 3 is allowable over Sumanaweera and Baumann at least for the reasons previously set forth in the record" and "Baumann does not remedy the deficiencies of Sumanaweera." (Id. at 11.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, from which claim 3 depends. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. § 103 Rejection---Sumanaweera and Grunwald Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent claims 5 and 14 separately (App. Br. 12-13), the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue "[ c ]laims 5 and 14 are allowable over Sumanaweera and Grunwald at least for the reasons previously set forth in the record" and "Grunwald does not remedy the deficiencies of Sumanaweera." (Id. at 12.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11, from which claims 5 and 14 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. § 103 Rejection---Sumanaweera and Gerard Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent claims 6, 7, and 15 separately (App. Br. 13-14), the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these 7 Appeal2014-005236 Application 13/056,149 dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue "[ c ]laims 6, 7 and 15 are allowable over Sumanaweera and Gerard at least for the reasons previously set forth in the record." and "Gerard does not remedy the deficiencies of Sumanaweera." (Id. at 13.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11, from which claims 6, 7, and 15 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 11-15 is affirmed. 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 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation