KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 15, 2021

2020001763 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 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.
15/112,709 07/20/2016 ALEKSANDRA POPOVIC 2013P02181WOUS 9134
24737 7590 01/15/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
SURGAN, ALEXANDRA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3795
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/15/2021 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALEKSANDRA POPOVIC and
ARYEH LEIB REINSTEIN

Appeal 2020-001763
Application 15/112,709
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, JAMES A. WORTH, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4 and 6–10. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Koninklijke
Philips N.V. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-001763
Application 15/112,709

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification discloses:
The present invention generally relates to robotic control
of an endoscope during a minimally invasive surgical procedure
(e.g., a minimally invasive coronary bypass grafting surgery).
The present invention specifically relates to a continuous
integration of pre-operative three-dimensional (“3D”) images
and intra-operative endoscopic images during a robotic assisted
minimally invasive surgical procedure.
Spec. 1, ll. 3–7.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal and recites:
1. A robot guiding system, comprising:
a robot unit including
an endoscope operable to generate an intra-
operative endoscopic image of an anatomical region, and
a robot operably connected to the endoscope to
move the endoscope within the anatomical region; and
a control unit including
a robot controller operably connected to the robot
and configured to command the robot to move the
endoscope within the anatomical region,
an endoscope controller operably connected to the
endoscope and configured to generate an endoscopic video
display of the intra-operative endoscopic image of the
anatomical region, and
an image integration module operably distributed
between the robot controller and the endoscope controller,
wherein, as the endoscope is stationary within the
anatomical region, the image integration module is configured to
register a pre-operative three-dimensional image of the
anatomical region to the intra-operative endoscopic image of the
anatomical region, and
Appeal 2020-001763
Application 15/112,709

3
wherein, as the endoscope is moving within the anatomical
region subsequent to a registration of the pre-operative three-
dimensional image and the intra-operative endoscopic image, the
image integration module is further configured to calibrate a
motion of the robot relative to the endoscope, and a motion
calibration of the robot relative to the endoscope is in phase with
a periodic motion of the anatomical region.
Appeal Br. 23–24.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–4 and 6–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Popovic2 in view of Chopra.3
DISCUSSION
Claim 1 recites a robot guiding system including a robot unit with an
endoscope, a robot, a robot controller, an endoscope controller, and an image
integration module, and requires that the image integration module is
“configured to calibrate a motion of the robot relative to the endoscope, and
a motion calibration of the robot relative to the endoscope is in phase with a
periodic motion of the anatomical region” that is imaged by the endoscope.
In other words, the claim requires that the integration module is configured
to correlate the motion of the robot to the endoscope as the endoscope is
moving through an anatomical region, and in doing so accounts for any
periodic motion, e.g., the beating of the heart, which occurs in the
anatomical region being imaged. See Spec. 6, ll. 23–32; 7, ll. 23–30.

2 Popovic, WO 2012/035492 Al, pub. Mar. 22, 2012.
3 Chopra et al., US 2012/0289777 Al, pub. Nov. 15, 2012.
Appeal 2020-001763
Application 15/112,709

4
As discussed below, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
the art of record does not teach or render obvious this requirement of
claim 1.
In the rejection, the Examiner acknowledges that Popovic “does not
teach a motion calibration of the robot relative to the endoscope is in phase
with a periodic motion of the anatomical region,” and the Examiner relies on
Chopra. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds and determines:
Chopra teaches an analogous robot unit wherein, as the
endoscope is moving within the anatomical region subsequent to
a registration of the pre-operative three-dimensional image and
the intra-operative endoscopic image, the image integration
module is further configured to calibrate a motion of the robot
relative to the endoscope (FIG. 8, 10) and a motion calibration of
the robot relative to the endoscope is in phase with a periodic
motion of the anatomical region (para [0054]).
It would have been prima facie obvious at the time of
invention to utilize the registration being in phase with periodic
motion of the anatomical structure as taught by Chopra et al. in
order to provide a more accurate registration of the 4-D computer
model of the anatomical structure to the medical device (para
[0055] of Chopra et al.).
Id.
However, the portions of Chopra relied upon by the Examiner only
discuss the registration of a 4-D computer model, and we agree with
Appellant that there is no disclosure regarding “a calibration of a motion of a
handle 116 (FIG. 1) or an input device 190 (FIG. 2) relative to image
capturing element 141 of medical device 110.” Appeal Br. 16, 17. Thus,
although these portions of Chopra may account for the periodic motion of an
anatomical region in creating a 4-D computer model, the Examiner has not
established that Chopra teaches calibration between the input device and the
Appeal 2020-001763
Application 15/112,709

5
image capturing element such that the claim would read on the process
identified in Chopra.
In response to this argument, the Examiner explains that Chopra
incorporates by reference Donhowe,4 and the Examiner then relies on
Donhowe as teaching “controlling an endoscope wherein a user command as
well as information about the current position and orientation of the
endoscope are input into a control system, and the control system uses the
information to generate an accurate steering commands [sic] to a robot to
steer the endoscope to a desired location.” Ans. 8–9 (citing Donhowe ¶¶ 87,
113, 114, 122). The Examiner finds that “[a]pplying the teaching of
[Donhowe] to the methods of Chopra would result in step 802 of Chopra
being performed in the manner disclosed in [Donhowe],” and thus, “Chopra
does teach a calibration of a motion of input device 190 relative to image
capturing element 141 of medical device 110.” Id. at 9–10.
Even if we were to agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding
Chopra and Donhowe as expressed in the Answer, the Examiner does not
explain how the resulting application of Donhowe to Chopra achieves
motion calibration as required by claim 1. Specifically, the Examiner does
not address how the art achieves “motion calibration of the robot relative to
the endoscope [that] is in phase with a periodic motion of the anatomical
region.” Although not explicitly explained by the Examiner, the Examiner
seems to rely on the fact that Donhowe teaches calculating steering
parameters based in part on real-time position and orientation information.
But the Examiner does not explain adequately how this results in motion

4 Donhowe et al., WO 2009/097461 A1, pub. Aug. 6, 2009.
Appeal 2020-001763
Application 15/112,709

6
calibration that is necessarily in phase with a periodic motion of an
anatomical region. The Examiner also does not otherwise explain
adequately why the application of Donhowe to Chopra would result in
motion calibration that is in phase with an anatomical region.
Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of
claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or any of
dependent claims 2–4 and 6–10.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1–4 and 6–10.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–10 103 Popovic, Chopra 1–4, 6–
10

REVERSED