KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2022

2021003206 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2022)

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. 14/914,016 02/24/2016 MICHAEL GRASS 2013P00841WOUS 1080 24737 7590 03/01/2022 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 1600 Summer Street 5th Floor Stamford, CT 06905 EXAMINER CWERN, JONATHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3793 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2022 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 MICHAEL GRASS, NERIMAN NICOLETTA KAHYA, SVEN PREVRHAL, MARCO VERSTEGE, and EBERHARD SEBASTIAN HANSIS Appeal 2021-003206 Application 14/914,016 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and AMEE A. SHAH, 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, 5, 7-13, and 15-20. 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. 2. Appeal 2021-003206 Application 14/914,016 2 BACKGROUND The Specification describes that “[t]he invention relates to a navigation system, a navigation method and a navigation computer program for navigating an interventional device like a catheter or a guidewire to a target region within a living being.” Spec. 1, ll. 2-4. CLAIMS Claims 1 and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A navigation system for enabling navigating an interventional device to a target region within a living being, the navigation system comprising: a position and shape determining unit for determining and storing a first position and shape of an interventional device within the living being when the interventional device reaches the target region during a first interventional procedure using optical shape sensing, and for continuously determining a second position and shape of the interventional device within the living being during a subsequent second interventional procedure using optical shape sensing; and a navigation device comprising a display and a user interaction unit for enabling a user to navigate the interventional device along a selected path of a plurality of available paths through an anatomical structure to the target region during the first interventional procedure, the anatomical structure defining at least one branch point physically separating the available paths, for displaying the stored first positon [sic: position] and shape of the interventional device, and for further enabling the user to navigate the interventional device along the same path during the second interventional procedure by matching the second position and shape, which are determined and displayed while the interventional device is being navigated along the same path during the second interventional procedure, with the displayed first position and shape of the interventional device. Appeal Br. 15. Appeal 2021-003206 Application 14/914,016 3 REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Oda2 in view of Hauck3 and Chan.4 2. The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Oda in view of Hauck, Chan, and Duindam.5 DISCUSSION Rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-20 We are persuaded of error in the rejection because the Examiner has not established that the art teaches or otherwise renders obvious all limitations of the independent claims. Claim 1 requires, inter alia, “a navigation device comprising a display and a user interaction unit” that enables a user to navigate an interventional device along a desired path including during first and second interventional procedures such that the device is enabled to allow “the user to navigate the interventional device along the same path during the second interventional procedure by matching the second position and shape [of the interventional device] . . . with the displayed first position and shape of the interventional device.” Appeal Br. 15. We understand this to require that the navigation systems display and interaction unit enable a user to navigate the interventional device in a second interventional procedure along the same path that was previously used in a first interventional procedure by matching the shape and position of the interventional device during the second 2 Oda, US 2008/0009714 A1, pub. Jan. 10, 2008. 3 Hauck et al., US 2007/0185485 A1, pub. Aug. 9, 2007. 4 Chan et al., US 2012/0197097 A1, pub. Aug. 2, 2012. 5 Duindam et al., US 2013/0303893 A1, pub. Nov. 14, 2013. Appeal 2021-003206 Application 14/914,016 4 procedure with the shape and position of the device as it was used in the first procedure. Further, this requires that the first position and shape of the interventional device are displayed during the second procedure so that such position and shape matching may occur. Similarly, independent claim 15 requires “displaying simultaneously the stored first position and shape of the interventional device and second position and shape of the interventional device enabling navigation . . . by matching the second position and shape with the first position and shape.” Appeal Br. 18. Thus, claim 15 also requires displaying the first position and shape information during a second procedure in order to match the second position and shape of the interventional device during a second procedure with the first position and shape of that device obtained during the first procedure. Regarding these requirements of claims 1 and 15, the Examiner appears to rely solely on Oda. See Final Act. 5 (citing Oda Figs. 4, 5; ¶¶ 72, 74, 92, 97, 100, 103, 105, 115, 117, 126, 128). Although the Examiner does not provide further explanation regarding these requirements, the Examiner appears to make relevant findings regarding Oda when discussing the dependent claims: Also, compare the stored first position/shape information with the second position/shape information to navigate during the second procedure ([0105]); continuously determine second position/shape and determine when the target region is reached (during the second procedure the position/shape is continuously determined to notify user when reaching location marked in first procedure; [0099], [0105])[.] Id. In the Answer, the Examiner responds to Appellant’s argument regarding these limitations (see Appeal Br. 9-10), and explains that “Oda Appeal 2021-003206 Application 14/914,016 5 teaches the limitation as claimed, as the display output of Figures 4-5 enables the user to navigate the interventional device by matching the positions and shapes.” Ans. 7. The Examiner further explains: As described for example in [0097]-[0098], the system generates different shapes for the first and second mark, and outputs it to the monitor. Also, as described in [0103], the endoscope shape (insertion shape figure of endoscope portion) may also be displayed with the marks, to assist the user in navigating the device. Furthermore, as described in [0126], the controller may compare the insertion shape figures to determine if the endoscope has passed the coordinates from the past examination, during the current examination. Id. at 6-7. The Examiner continues regarding Oda’s Figures 4 and 5: However, as illustrated in Figures 4-5, the insertion shape of the endoscope from the previous examination is also illustrated, by the dotted line showing the path of the endoscope during the previous examination, which represents the twists and turns (changing shape of endoscope) as it was guided through the patient. Thus, the user can compare the current path/shape of the endoscope (solid line), with the previous path/shape of the endoscope (dotted line). Id. at 8. We have reviewed the cited portions of Oda, and even when considered in light of the Examiner’s explanation in the Answer, we fail to see how Oda teaches the limitations at issue. We note that, at a minimum, the independent claims both require obtaining and storing the first position and shape of a device during a first procedure, displaying that first position and shape during a second procedure, and matching the second position and shape with the first position and shape of the device during the second procedure. The Examiner has failed to adequately show how Oda teaches a Appeal 2021-003206 Application 14/914,016 6 navigation device (claim 1) that is capable of, or a computer-readable medium (claim 15) that is programmed for, performing these functions. To the extent the Examiner asserts that Oda’s Figures 4 and 5 provide a comparison between a current path and shape of an endoscope with a previous path and shape of the endoscope, we disagree. As Appellant explains, and we agree, Figure 4 shows only the shape and position of the endoscope during a first procedure and Figure 5 shows only the shape and position of the endoscope during a second procedure. See Reply Br. 7 (see Oda ¶¶ 88, 44, 88, 97, 103, 126). Oda explains that the dotted lines depicted in these figures represent “the portion [of the endoscope] corresponding to the length of removal” of the endoscope during the procedure. Oda ¶ 88. For instance, Oda states that “the portion remaining in the body cavity is displayed by the solid line on the monitor shown in FIG. 4, for example, and the portion having been removed from the body cavity is displayed by the broken line on the monitor 9.” Id.. Thus, Oda explains that the figures only include depictions of shape and position of the device in respective separate procedures, and we see no disclosure consistent with the Examiner’s explanation regarding these figures. We also see nothing in the other cited portions of Oda that teaches displaying the first shape and position of the endoscope obtained in a first procedure while conducting a second procedure in order to match the shapes and positions of the endoscope. Oda appears to only teach displaying the current position and shape of the device during a current procedure along with marks that were either placed during the current procedure or during a previous procedure. See, e.g., Oda ¶ 103. Oda does disclose that the system may detect when “first observation information matches the patient Appeal 2021-003206 Application 14/914,016 7 information outputted” during a second observation, but there is no disclosure that the first position and shape of the device are actually displayed for comparison purposes, only that when a match is found certain marks from the first observation are displayed. Id. at 97. Even if such marks might represent the position of the device during the first procedure, we see no explanation indicating that the position and shape of the device during a first observation are displayed along with the position and shape of the device during the second observation. Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of claims 1 and 15, as well, as dependent claims 4, 5, 7-9, 11-13, and 16-20. Accordingly, we do not sustain this rejection. Rejection of Claim 10 The Examiner does not provide any further explanation or citation to evidence in rejecting claim 10 that would cure the deficiency in the rejection of claim 1, as discussed above. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 10. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, 7-13, and 15-20. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 15- 20 103 Oda, Hauck, Chan 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 11- 13, 15- 20 10 103 Oda, Hauck, Chan, Duindam 10 Appeal 2021-003206 Application 14/914,016 8 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed Overall Outcome 1, 4, 5, 7-13, 15-20 REVERSED