KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 19, 2020

2019006490 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2020)

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.
15/031,097 04/21/2016 AJAY ANAND 2013P01181WOUS 8090
24737 7590 08/19/2020
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
VIERRA, RACHEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3794
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/19/2020 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 AJAY ANAND, SHRIRAM SETHURAMAN, SHIWEI ZHOU,
HUA XIE, JUNBO LI, and JEAN-LUC ROBERT
____________

Appeal 2019-006490
Application 15/031,097
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.

OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–19. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “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 2019-006490
Application 15/031,097

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A temperature monitoring apparatus comprising:
a temperature application unit configured to introduce
heating power into a tissue for heating the tissue during a thermal
ablation process;
an ultrasound unit configured to emit and receive
ultrasound waves and to determine a temperature in a
measurement region of the tissue using ultrasound shear wave
detection during the ablation process; and
a temperature estimation unit comprising a heat transfer
model, the heat transfer model comprising parameters which
have initial values based on medical images of the tissue,
wherein the temperature estimation unit is configured, during the
thermal ablation process, to:
generate a temperature distribution based on the
parameters of the heat transfer model, the temperature
distribution comprising estimated temperatures for
locations in the tissue corresponding to a region of interest
and the measurement region,
compare the estimated temperatures in locations of
the temperature distribution corresponding to the
measurement region to the determined temperature in the
measurement region, and
update the values of the parameters of the heat
transfer model based on the comparison.

EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Garabedian US 2005/013765 A1 June 23, 2005
Birchard US 2009/0018497 A1 Jan. 15, 2009
Kuhn US 2013/0060243 A1 Mar. 7, 2013
Appeal 2019-006490
Application 15/031,097

3
Bastien Arnal et al., “Monitoring of Thermal Therapy Based on Shear
Modulus Changes: I. Shear Wave Thermometry,” IEEE Transactions
on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, Vol. 58, No. 2,
369–78 (Feb. 2011) (hereinafter “Arnal”)
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–5, 7–11, and 14–192 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn and Arnal. Final Act. 3–11.
II. Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kuhn, Arnal, and Garabedian. Id. at 11–12.
III. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kuhn, Arnal, and Birchard. Id. at 12–13.
OPINION
Rejection I
Appellant argues claims 1–5, 7–11, and 14–19 as a group. Appeal
Br. 5–8. We select claim 1 as representative of the issues that Appellant
presents in the appeal, and claims 2–5, 7–11, and 14–19 stand or fall
therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Kuhn teaches most of the limitations of
independent claim 1, including, among other things, a temperature
estimation unit comprising a heat transfer model. Final Act. 4; Ans. 4.
Although in the Final Action, the Examiner refers only to “the display which

2 Even though the Examiner includes claim 6, rather than claim 7, in the
heading for this rejection (see Final Act. 3), the Examiner makes reference
to claim 7, rather than claim 6, in the body of the rejection (id. at 6, 12–13).
We consider the Examiner’s oversight in the heading to be a typographical
error, and therefore, we list claim 7, rather than claim 6, as being subject to
this ground of rejection. The Examiner rejects claim 6 in connection with
Rejection III.
Appeal 2019-006490
Application 15/031,097

4
shows the images of the predetermined influence region (22) and the
estimated influence region (24)” as the heat transfer model (Final Act. 4),
the Examiner further explains in the Answer that:
Kuhn discloses that the temperature distribution estimating unit,
which estimates the second temperature distribution, is adapted
to use heat-diffusion equations and known parameters of the
object like heat-diffusion algorithms ([0049-0050]). The
equations that are specifically used are displayed in paragraphs
([0056]-[0060]) and this mathematical framework is used to
estimate the second temperature distribution evolution in space
over time ([0074]), showing that an algorithm is used in this
estimation and overall to determine the estimated influence
region (24). This information is used to recommend parameter
settings to the user in order to have the estimated temperature
distribution in the planned/targeted region ([0074]).
Ans. 4. The Examiner also finds that Kuhn teaches, among other things, that
“the temperature estimation unit is configured . . . to . . . compare the
estimated temperatures in locations of the temperature distribution
corresponding to the measurement region to the determined temperature in
the measurement region.” Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 5–6. In particular, the
Examiner explains that, in Kuhn:
[t]he system delivers heat to a tissue and continuously measures
a first temperature distribution in a first temperature range until
the object is heated to a determined threshold temperature in the
predefined influence region ([0045]). The system estimates the
second temperature distribution based on the measured first
temperature distribution ([0048]) by extrapolating parameters
from the first temperature range defined by the determined first
temperature distribution ([0049]). Depending on the estimated
second temperature distribution, the estimated influence region
of the cited heat transfer model is determined ([0050]). Thus[,]
the system provides estimated temperatures within the estimated
second temperature distribution in order to determine the
estimated influence region, where these temperatures are within
Appeal 2019-006490
Application 15/031,097

5
the measurement region. The estimated influence region is
predicted based on a measured three dimensional temperature
distribution evolution over time based on the second temperature
distribution, which is preferentially determined by extrapolation
by using heat-diffusion algorithms ([0051]). Further, the . . .
second temperature distribution, and thus the estimated influence
region, is adapted and changed based on a calculated deviation
between the predefined influence region and estimated influence
region ([0076]).
Therefore, since the estimated influence region is
dependent on the second temperature distribution, Kuhn teaches
a comparison between estimated temperatures (i.e.[,] the second
temperature distribution) in the measurement region to the
determined temperature (i.e.[,] the predetermined temperature to
heat the target . . . in the predefined influence region to . . . the
first temperature distribution).
Ans. 5–6.
Appellant first argues that “a user- or automatically-defined region
where energy should be applied cannot reasonably be interpreted as
corresponding to ‘a heat transfer model.’” Appeal Br. 6. More specifically,
Appellant argues that, when interpreting the term “heat transfer model” in
light of the Specification, one having ordinary skill in the art would view a
heat transfer model as an algorithm, which may include equations, and
“would not interpret ‘a heat transfer model’ of Appellant’s claims to
correspond to a region where energy should be applied or a region where
energy may be applied shown on a display.” Id. at 6–7.
We have considered Appellant’s first argument, but Appellant does
not respond with sufficient particularity to the Examiner’s additional
findings in the Answer explaining that equations and a mathematical
framework are used to estimate a second temperature distribution evolution
in space over time so as to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding
Appeal 2019-006490
Application 15/031,097

6
that Kuhn teaches “a temperature estimation unit comprising a heat transfer
model,” as claimed.
Appellant secondly argues that “Kuhn does not teach or suggest a
temperature estimation unit configured to ‘compare the estimated
temperatures . . . to the determined temperatures . . . ’ as recited in the
independent claims.” Appeal Br. 7 (boldface omitted). With respect to this
second argument, Appellant asserts that “both [an] initial first temperature
distribution and [a] modified first temperature distribution are based on
measured temperatures in the predefined influence region 22 of Kuhn, not
on a comparison between estimated temperatures and measured
temperatures within the predefined influence region 22 of Kuhn.” Id. at 7–8.
We have considered this argument, but do not find it persuasive in that the
rejection does not rely on a finding that the first temperature distribution is
based on a comparison between estimated temperatures and measured
temperatures. See Final Act. 3–4 (referring to Kuhn’s “first temperature
distribution” as the determined “temperature in a measurement region of the
tissue” recited in the claims and referring to Kuhn’s “second temperature
distribution” as the “temperature distribution” generated by the temperature
estimation unit recited in the claims).
With respect to the second argument, Appellant also asserts that
“estimated temperatures are only generated for the region outside the
measurement region, that is, the estimated influence region 24 of Kuhn.”
Appeal Br. 8. Appellant continues that “[a]ccordingly, Kuhn fails to teach
or suggest, ‘compare the estimated temperatures in locations of the
temperature distribution corresponding to the measurement region to the
determined temperature in the measurement region, and update the values of
Appeal 2019-006490
Application 15/031,097

7
the parameters of the heat transfer model based on the comparison,’ as
recited in claim 1.” Id.
As to there being a comparison between estimated temperatures and
determined temperatures in Kuhn, the Examiner states that “[t]he estimated
influence region is based on the calculated second temperature distribution,
which itself is based on a measured first temperature region . . . [,] implying
that a comparison between a measured temperature and an estimated
temperature does occur when the second temperature distribution is
recalculated.” Adv. Act. 2. The Examiner adds that the second temperature
distribution is continuously recalculated until a deviation between the
predetermined influence region and the estimated influence region (which is
determined by the second temperature distribution) is within a desired
threshold. Id.
As to whether Kuhn’s estimated temperatures are generated for the
measurement region, the Examiner disagrees with Appellant’s suggestion
that Kuhn’s estimated temperatures are only generated for the region outside
the measurement region. Ans. 5. The Examiner states that Kuhn’s system
“provides estimated temperatures within the estimated second temperature
distribution in order to determine the estimated influence region, where these
temperatures are within the measurement region.” Id. (citing Kuhn ¶¶ 19,
45, 48–50) (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Kuhn ¶ 19 (“While the energy is
applied to the object in accordance with the provided energy application
characteristics and while the temperature of the object increases within the
first temperature range, the temperature distribution measuring unit
measures a spatially and temporally dependent first temperature distribution
in the object. Based on the temporal and spatial evolution of the first
Appeal 2019-006490
Application 15/031,097

8
temperature distribution, i.e. based on the spatial and temporal dependence
of the measured first temperature distribution, a spatially and temporally
dependent second temperature distribution within the second temperature
range is estimated, preferentially without heating the object to a temperature
within the second temperature range. Then, the estimated influence region
determining unit determines an estimated influence region of the object
depending on the estimated second temperature distribution.”).
Appellant does not respond with sufficient particularity to the
positions set forth by the Examiner in the Advisory Action and the Answer
so as to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Kuhn teaches a
“temperature estimation unit [that] is configured . . . to . . . compare the
estimated temperatures in locations of the temperature distribution
corresponding to the measurement region to the determined temperature in
the measurement region,” as claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in
the Examiner’s determination that Kuhn and Arnal render obvious the
subject matter of independent claim 1. We sustain the rejection of claim 1,
and claims 2–5, 7–11, and 14–19 falling therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Kuhn and Arnal.
Rejections II and III
In contesting the rejections of dependent claims 6, 12, and 13,
Appellant relies on the same arguments and reasoning we found
unpersuasive in connection with independent claim 1 as the basis for seeking
reversal of the rejections of these claims. Appeal Br. 5–9. Accordingly, for
the same reasons discussed above in connection with the rejection of
claim 1, we also sustain the rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, of claims 12
Appeal 2019-006490
Application 15/031,097

9
and 13 as unpatentable over Kuhn, Arnal, and Garabedian and claim 6 as
unpatentable over Kuhn, Arnal, and Birchard.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–11,
14–19
103 Kuhn, Arnal 1–5, 7–11,
14–19

12, 13 103 Kuhn, Arnal,
Garabedian
12, 13
6 103 Kuhn, Arnal, Birchard 6
Overall
Outcome
1–19

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