Matthew Spears

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 26, 2019

14728168 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2019)

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.
14/728,168 06/02/2015 Matthew Spears 2015P01860US01 7845
24737 7590 07/26/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
TURCHEN, ROCHELLE DEANNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2019 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 MATTHEW SPEARS
__________________

Appeal 2018-008129
Application 14/728,168
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 1–8, 10–14, and 16–19. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2018-008129
Application 14/728,168

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to a terahertz imaging system that may be used prior
to, during, and/or after an angioplasty or another surgical intervention. Spec.
¶¶ 2, 3, 30. System 100 may be used with a laser ablation device. Id. ¶ 30.
A catheter 102, 200, or 250 includes a terahertz imaging transceiver 104 to
emit radiation to produce 2D or 3D images and a fiber optic bundle 206 to
emit pulsed laser energy to targeted lumen or tissue. Id. ¶¶ 25, 28–30, 33. A
controller 108 is operative to control or coordinate pulsed laser and terahertz
imaging outputs to reduce or eliminate signal interference. Id. ¶ 35.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A terahertz imaging system including:
a catheter having a coupler configured to couple to a
laser generator, the catheter operative to output laser energy to
ablate an occlusion in a lumen of a human;
a terahertz transceiver device coupled to the catheter, the
terahertz transceiver device being operative to output terahertz
radiation through the lumen and to receive reflection signals
based on the terahertz radiation;
a power source coupled to the terahertz transceiver
device; and
a controller in communication with the terahertz
transceiver device, the controller being operative to coordinate
output of laser energy and terahertz radiation to obtain an image
of the lumen based on the reflection signals.

Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
Claims 1–8, 10–14, and 16–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ouchi (US 2014/0127707 A1, pub. May 8, 2014) and Udd
(US 2009/0123111 A1, pub. May 14, 2009).
Appeal 2018-008129
Application 14/728,168

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies on Ouchi to teach a terahertz imaging system as
recited in claim 1, except for a laser generator and a controller operative to
coordinate the output of laser energy and terahertz radiation. Final Act. 5.
The Examiner finds that Udd teaches a catheter used in human lumen
with a radiation device, a laser delivery device coupled to a distal end of the
catheter, and a controller operative to coordinate output of laser energy and
control a direction of radiation emitted by the device. Id. at 5–6 (citing Udd
¶ 104). The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify the
terahertz imaging system of Ouchi with a catheter and laser device of Udd to
“provide targeted imaging and ablation within a patient.” Id. at 6. Further,
the Examiner finds that neither reference teaches a controller “operative to
coordinate output of laser energy and terahertz radiation,” but the Examiner
relies upon the combination of references to teach this limitation, reasoning
that Udd’s controller controls the output of laser energy and would modify
Ouchi’s controller to control imaging and laser ablation. See Ans. 5–6.
Appellant argues that paragraph 104 of Udd, which the Examiner cites
for the claimed controller, discloses a controller, but Udd does not describe a
controller that coordinates the output of laser energy and terahertz radiation
as claimed. Appeal Br. 4–6. Appellant also argues that the Examiner has
not explained how a skilled artisan would have modified Ouchi and Udd to
produce such a system as claimed. Id. at 6–7. Appellant argues that, even if
Ouchi’s terahertz radiation controller is combined with Udd’s controller for
laser ablation, the combination would yield one controller that controls
terahertz radiation and another controller that controls laser ablation without
coordinating different functions of the device as claimed. Reply Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008129
Application 14/728,168

4
The Examiner has not explained how combining a terahertz imaging
probe and controller of Ouchi with a controller and laser ablation device of
Udd would render obvious “the controller being operative to coordinate
output of laser energy and terahertz radiation” as claimed. See Ans. 6–7;
Final Act. 6. The Examiner has not explained how combining a controller of
Ouchi that controls a terahertz imaging probe and a controller of Udd that
controls a laser (for optical fiber sensors (Udd ¶¶ 3, 75, 104)) would render
obvious a single controller operative to coordinate the output of laser energy
and terahertz radiation as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 4–6; Reply Br. 2.
The Specification describes the claimed “a controller” as a single
“[c]ontroller 108 of FIGS. 1 and 2 [that] is operative to control or coordinate
the pulsed laser and terahertz imaging outputs to reduce or eliminate signal
interference.” Spec. ¶ 35; Reply Br. 1–2. The rejection does not explain
how the two separate controllers of Ouchi and Udd, which separately control
terahertz radiation in Ouchi and laser energy in Udd, would render obvious a
single controller that coordinates the output of laser energy and terahertz
radiation as claimed.1 Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–8,
10–14, and 16–19.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1–8, 10–14, and 16–19.

1 Independent claim 11 recites the step of “coordinating the emission of a
laser signal from the catheter to ablate an occlusion in the lumen” and
independent claim 16 recites “coordinating emission of the laser signal and
the terahertz radiation.” Appeal Br. 10–11 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
The rejection of these claims relies on the same findings and determination
of obviousness as set forth above for claim 1 to render obvious these similar
limitations. Final Act. 5–6; see Ans. 7–8.
Appeal 2018-008129
Application 14/728,168

5
REVERSED