General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2021

2021002491 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2021)

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.
15/279,616 09/29/2016 Menachem Halmann 315221-US-1 7254
61604 7590 09/30/2021
GE Precision Healthcare LLC
IP Department
9900 W. Innovation Drive
Mail Code RP2131
Wauwatosa, WI 53226
EXAMINER
CHOI, YOUNHEE JEON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2021 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):
HCTechnologies@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MENACHEM HALMANN, ALEXANDER SOKULIN,
PETER LYSYANSKY, and CYNTHIA OWEN
Appeal 2021-002491
Application 15/279,616
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–28. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as General Electric
Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-002491
Application 15/279,616
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and system for enhanced
visualization and selection of a representative ultrasound image by
automatically detecting b lines and scoring images of an ultrasound scan.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
performing, by an ultrasound probe of an ultrasound
system, an ultrasound scan to acquire a video clip having a
plurality of images in a selected zone of a set of lungs;
detecting, by a processor of the ultrasound system, B lines
in each of the plurality of images in the video clip;
detecting, by the processor, a width of each of the B lines
in each of the plurality of images;
sorting, by the processor, the B lines into a first group and
a second group by the width of each of the B lines, wherein the
B lines in the first group have a narrower width than the B lines
in the second group;
assigning a score, by the processor, to each of the plurality
of images in the video clip based at least in part on both a
detected number of B lines and the width of each of the B lines;
highlighting, by the processor, the B lines in the first group
differently from the B lines in the second group in each of the
images in the video clip;
identifying, by the processor, a representative image from
the plurality of images in the video clip in the selected zone,
wherein the identifying the representative image is based at least
in part on the assigned score to each of the plurality of images;
and
displaying, by a display system of the ultrasound system,
the identified representative image.
Appeal 2021-002491
Application 15/279,616
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Imamura US 2009/0306514 A1 Dec. 10, 2009
Hansegard US 2012/0245465 A1 Sept. 27, 2012
Sohn US 2015/0002538 A1 Jan. 1, 2015
Keating US 2015/0071547 A1 Mar. 12, 2015
Bouhemad, Belaid et al., “Bedside Ultrasound Assessment of Positive
End-Expiratory Pressure-induced Lung Recruitment,” American Journal
of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2011
Miller, Douglas L. et al., “Anesthetic Techniques Influence the Induction
of Pulmonary Capillary Hemorrhage During Diagnostic Ultrasound
Scanning in Rats,” J. Ultrasound Med, 2015
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 13–15, 18, 19, and 21–28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sohn, Miller, Bouhemad, and
Keating. Final Act. 7.2
Claims 4 and 10–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sohn, Miller, Bouhemad, Keating, and Imamura. Final
Act. 24.3

2 The Examiner does not list claims 7, 14, and 15 as being rejected in the
heading of this rejection, but does address them in the detailed explanation
of the rejection. Accordingly, we consider these claims as also included in
this rejection. Additionally, we consider the inclusion of claims 10–12 in
the heading of this rejection as a typographical error, because the Examiner
does not address claims 10–12 in the detailed explanation and also rejects
claims 10–12 by further relying on Imamura.
3 We consider the inclusion of claim 16 in the heading of this rejection as a
typographical error, because the Examiner does not address claim 16 in the
detailed explanation and also rejects claim 16 by further relying on
Hansegard.
Appeal 2021-002491
Application 15/279,616
4
Claims 6, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sohn, Miller, Bouhemad, Keating, and Hansegard. Final
Act. 29.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Sohn, Miller, Bouhemad, Keating, Hansegard, and Imamura. Final Act. 31.
OPINION
Appellant first argues that the Examiner erred in the interpretation of
Sohn. Appeal Br. 12–15. Appellant’s main contention is that Sohn,
although showing different types of highlighting, does so in the context of
two separate embodiments each with a different highlighting between the
embodiments, but the same within each embodiment. Id. at 13–14.
Appellant goes on at length as to why Sohn does not support the Examiner’s
combination of the different highlighting in Sohn, but fails to mention
Bouhemad. Id. at 11–15. The Examiner’s actual rejection on this issue is
that Sohn teaches different highlighting in different embodiments, but that
Bouhemad teaches differentiating within a single embodiment two different
groups using differing line widths. Thus, it is the combination of the two
references that teaches this feature, not Sohn alone. See, e.g., Ans. 6–7
(“Bouhemad, which the Appellant fails to address . . . .”). Because
Appellant does not even address Bouhemad, we are not apprised of error in
the Examiner’s rejections.
Appellant next asserts that the Examiner has mischaracterized Miller
in that, inter alia, “Miller only relies on the CTA . . . to assess pulmonary
capillary hemorrhage,” and “does not teach or suggest ‘assigning a score’”
as claimed. Appeal Br. 17. As the Examiner points out, however, Miller’s
discussion of CTA is equivalent to the claimed B-lines. Ans. 12 (“one of
Appeal 2021-002491
Application 15/279,616
5
ordinary skill in the art . . . would recognize that B lines are also known as
comet tail artifacts and the terms can be interchangeably used”).
Additionally, the Examiner points out that the rejection also relies upon
Bouhemad for assigning the score, which, again, Appellant does not address.
Accordingly, we are not apprised of error. Id. at 12–13.
Lastly, Appellant argues that Keating does not disclose identifying a
representative image because “Keating teaches a method of identifying a
photograph with the best quality metrics from a series of digital photographs
taken in a burst photo capture mode.” Appeal Br. 18. Appellant also asserts
that Keating is not in the same field of endeavor and therefore should not be
considered analogous art. Appeal Br. 17. Again, Appellant argues Keating
by itself without taking it in context of the overall rejection. The Examiner’s
rejection utilizes Sohn in combination with Keating and utilizes the scoring
system of Keating within the context of Sohn such that it would “prevent all
ultrasound images from being ‘reviewed by the user to select one or more
keeper pictures . . . that can be a time consuming and tedious task.’” Ans. 16
(citing Keating ¶ 5). Once placed into context, the Examiner’s use of
Keating makes sense, and Appellant ignores that context. Furthermore,
Appellant’s claims do not assign any particular meaning as to what
“representative” means. Even if Keating is merely choosing a “best” image,
this is still “representative” of a group of images in that it represents the best
image of the group. As to Keating being analogous art, we adopt the
Examiner’s explanation of the qualifications and conclusion regarding the
same. Ans. 16–18 (finding Keating is reasonably pertinent to a problem
faced by Appellant). Accordingly, we are not apprised of error and sustain
all of the Examiner’s rejections.
Appeal 2021-002491
Application 15/279,616
6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 7–9,
13–15, 18,
19, 21–28
103 Sohn, Miller,
Bouhemad, Keating
1–3, 5, 7–9,
13–15, 18,
19, 21–28

4, 10–12 103 Sohn, Miller,
Bouhemad, Keating,
Imamura
4, 10–12
6, 16, 20 103 Sohn, Miller,
Bouhemad, Keating,
Hansegard
6, 16, 20
17 103 Sohn, Miller,
Bouhemad, Keating,
Hansegard, Imamura
17
Overall
Outcome
1–28

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED