Siemens Healthcare GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 9, 2022

2021003771 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 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. 15/579,999 12/06/2017 Jin-hyeong Park 2015P03092WOUS 1971 28524 7590 02/09/2022 SIEMENS CORPORATION IP Dept - Mail Code INT-244 3850 Quadrangle Blvd Orlando, FL 32817 EXAMINER SIRIPURAPU, RAJEEV P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3793 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/09/2022 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): ipdadmin.us@siemens.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JIN-HYEONG PARK, MICHAL SOFKA, and SHAOHUA KEVIN ZHOU Appeal 2021-003771 Application 15/579,999 Technology Center 3700 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. KAUFFMAN, 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, 3-16, and 18-20.2 See Final Office Action, dated July 22, 2020 (“Final Act.”), at 1; and Appeal Brief filed November 24, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), at 1-2 (acknowledging the status of these claims). 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party as the applicant, Siemens Healthcare GMBH. Appeal Br. 1. 2 In the status of claims, Appellant mistakenly includes claim 2 and omits claim 3. Appellant correctly identifies the claims subject to this appeal in the grounds of rejection to be reviewed on appeal. See Appeal Br. 1-2; 5-6. Appeal 2021-003771 Application 15/579,999 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Each of the rejections subject to this appeal relies on Stehle as disclosing a processor that compares as claimed. For the reasons given in this opinion, Appellant has shown error with regard to this limitation. Accordingly, we REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed invention relates to methods and systems for ultrasound imaging such as for imaging the breast. Spec. ¶¶ 1-2. Volumetric ultrasound is used to image a patient to detect and/or display lesions. Spec. ¶ 1. This may require obtaining multiple volumes of data from different angles or perspectives. Id. A processor can identify anatomical structures in a volume, and can generate images from slices of the volume of ultrasound data. Id. ¶¶ 2, 3. The processor also can compare images to identify an image containing an anatomical structure. Id. Claims 1, 16, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Appeal Br. 16, 18, 19. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of detecting an anatomical structure in a first volume of ultrasound data, the method comprising: scanning the patient by an ultrasound volume scanner, the scanning providing a second volume of ultrasound data; detecting the anatomical structure in the second volume of ultrasound data, the second volume and the first volume representing different but overlapping regions of a patient; generating, by a processor, a second image of a second slice of the second volume, the second slice comprising data representing a plane in the second volume and including the anatomical structure and an anatomical landmark; Appeal 2021-003771 Application 15/579,999 3 generating, by the processor, a series of images of slices of the first volume, the slices of the first volume comprising data representing planes in the first volume and including the anatomical landmark; comparing, by the processor, the series of images to the second image; identifying, by the processor based on the comparing, a first image from the series of images that contains a representation of the anatomical structure; and presenting the first image and the second image on a display. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 14-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Stehle, or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Stehle and Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art.3 Final Act. 3-5. 2. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 6, and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Stehle and Kossoff.4 Final Act. 5-7. 3. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Stehle, Kossoff, Park, and Jackson.5 Final. Act. 7. 3 Waechter-Stehle, WO 2014/162232 A1, Oct. 9, 2014. The Examiner and Appellant refer to this reference as “Stehle,” and for consistency we do the same. Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art, referred to hereinafter as “AAPA,” is the Examiner taking Official Notice “that generation of an image from image data and subsequent display of said data is well known in the art.” See Final Act. 4. 4 Kossoff, US 4,455,872, June 26, 1984. 5 Park, US 2015/0157298 A1, June 11, 2015; Jackson, US 2009/0076385 A1, Mar. 19, 2009. Appeal 2021-003771 Application 15/579,999 4 4. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Stehle and Park. Final Act. 7-8. 5. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Stehle and Wei.6 Final Act. 8. 6. The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Stehle and Zhang.7 Final Act. 8-9. 7. The Examiner rejects claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Stehle, Kossoff, Park, and Jackson. Final Act. 9-10. OPINION I. Claims 1, 3, 14-16, and 18-20 over Stehle or Stehle and AAPA A. Claims 1, 3, 16, and 18-208 Claimed Subject Matter, Rejection, and Arguments Claim 1 is directed to a method that includes a comparing step. In that step, the processor compares (1) a series of images from a first volume of ultrasound data, to (2) a second image from a second volume of ultrasound data. Independent claims 16 and 20 contain similar limitations. The Examiner found that Stehle discloses the processor comparing a series of images from a first volume to a second image from a second volume as required by claim 1. Final Act. 3 (citing Stehle 5:6-6:27, 11:10- 16:12, Figs. 1, 3, 5). The rejection essentially repeats the claim language and cites to Stehle without further explanation. 6 Wei, US 2005/0232474 A1, Oct. 20, 2005. 7 Zhang, US 2006/0110022 A1, May 25, 2006. 8 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1 because Appellant argues for claims 3, 16, and 18-20 as a group. See Appeal Br. 10, 12; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2020). Appeal 2021-003771 Application 15/579,999 5 Appellant argues that Stehle discloses comparing a given standard view image from a first volume to the same standard view image from a second volume and does not disclose comparing one image from a first volume to a series of images from a second volume as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 6. According to Appellant, Stehle generates images (2D slices) for each of the 20 standard views, gives each slice for a given standard view a quality score, and then selects the image with the highest quality score for each view. Id. at 7-10. Appellant notes that this is true even when more than one volume of image data is acquired. Id. The Examiner characterizes Appellant’s argument as asserting that other embodiments do not meet the limitations of claim 1 while ignoring the embodiment disclosed at pages 5 and 6 of Stehle. Ans. 3. The Examiner emphasizes that Stehle discloses comparing as required by claim 1 by describing that, “the system itself automatically selects the best version out of all generated 2D slices for each 2D standard view.” Id. at 5 (quoting Stehle 6:5-7). Appellant responds that the portion of Stehle quoted by the Examiner discloses that Stehle compares to find the highest quality version of each of the 20 standard views. Reply Br. 2. The issue before us is whether the embodiment disclosed at pages 5 and 6 of Stehle discloses or suggests a processor that compares (1) a series of images from a first volume of ultrasound data, to (2) a second image from a second volume of ultrasound data. Appeal 2021-003771 Application 15/579,999 6 Analysis As an initial matter, we disagree with the Examiner’s characterization that Appellant addresses other irrelevant embodiments and ignores the embodiment the Examiner relied on. See Ans. 3-5 (relying on the embodiment found at Stehle 5-6). The embodiment relied on by the Examiner is found in the summary, and Appellant cites to the same embodiment in the detailed description. See Reply Brief filed May 25, 2021 (“Reply Br.”), at 3 (pointing out the correct embodiment was addressed); Appeal Br. 7-10 (addressing the detailed description of the embodiment); see also Stehle 2-8 (Summary of the Invention), 9-17 (Detailed Description of the Invention). This clarification does not end our inquiry, we must analyze the prior art reference. As background, Stehle discloses that transesophageal echocardiography (“TEE”) is an alternative method of performing an echocardiogram of the human heart. Stehle 1:10-13. To perform a full TEE procedure, a user passes a probe having an ultrasound transducer in the tip into the patient’s esophagus and then captures three-dimensional ultrasonic volume data. Id. at 1:2-4, 1:10-13. The three-dimensional (“3D”) volume data is used to generate 20 different predefined two-dimensional (“2D”) TEE views (standard views). Id. at 1:4-7, 1:14-24; 8:23-24; 13:21-22; Fig. 3 (schematic of 2D standard views). The TEE process is tedious, uncomfortable for the patient, and time consuming (20 to 30 minutes). Id. at 1:19-21. In the Summary of the Invention, Stehle discloses embodiments designed to perform a TEE quicker, more comfortably for the patient, and Appeal 2021-003771 Application 15/579,999 7 more reliably. Stehle 2:10-8:14. We focus on the embodiment the Examiner relies on. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 3-4; Stehle 5-6. Stehle discloses an embodiment of an ultrasound imaging system having a memory for storing a plurality of sets of volume data. Id. at 5:20- 24. The memory can also store a plurality of 2D slices generated from the plurality of sets of volume data and their respective quality factors. Id. For each of the 20 two-dimensional standard views of a TEE, the system’s selector selects a 2D slice having the highest quality factor. Id. at 5:25-28, 6:4-5; 8:25-26; 16:10; Fig. 4 (S18). When more than one set of 3D ultrasound volume data is performed, the system automatically selects the best version of all generated 2D slices for each of the 20 standard views. Id. at 6:5-7. The 3D ultrasound scans are different sets of volume data and may be the result of scans at different positions or orientations of the ultrasound probe. Id. at 5:31-33; 13:1-9. The system also notifies the user if all 20 standard views have been provided by the 3D ultrasound scans or if a standard view is missing and a further set of 3D volume data must be obtained. Id. at 6:9-13; see also 12:26-29. This means that a set of 3D volume data may or may not include each of the 20 standard views. This embodiment is an improvement in that it allows comparing “2D slices with each other that correspond to the same 2D standard views” generated from different 3D ultrasound scans. Id. at 5:29-31. Using this technique, the system illustrates (displays) for the user the best examples of each of the 20 standard views. Id. at 6:8-9; 13:10-18, 14:15-20. In sum, the embodiment of Stehle relied on by the Examiner collects one or more sets of 3D volume data, generates 2D slices for each standard Appeal 2021-003771 Application 15/579,999 8 view, compares all 2D slices corresponding to a given standard view, and selects the slice with the highest quality factor as the representative slice for each of the 20 standard views. If slices are unavailable for any of the 20 standard views, the system notifies the user. For these reasons, we agree with Appellant that Stehle discloses comparing a given standard view image from a first volume to the same standard view image from a second volume and does not disclose comparing one image from a first volume to a series of images from a second volume as required by claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6; see also Final Act. 3; Ans. 3-5. Claims 3, 14, and 15 depend from claim 1 and claims 18 and 19 depend from independent claim 16. The rejection of these dependent claims suffers from the same shortcoming as that of the respective independent claims. Consequently, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 14-16, and 18-20. II. Remaining rejections The claims subject to the remaining rejections all depend from independent claims 1 or 16, and the Examiner relies on Stehle in the same manner as the rejections of independent claims 1 and 16. See Final Act. 5- 10. Therefore, our analysis above is equally applicable here. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. Appeal 2021-003771 Application 15/579,999 9 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 14-16, 18-20 102(a)(1) Stehle 1, 3, 14-16, 18-20 1, 3, 14-16, 18-20 103 Stehle, AAPA 1, 3, 14-16, 18-20 4, 6, 9-11 103 Stehle, Kossoff 4, 6, 9-11 5 103 Stehle, Kossoff, Park, Jackson 5 7 103 Stehle, Park 7 8 103 Stehle, Wei 8 12, 13 103 Stehle, Zhang 12, 13 19 103 Stehle, Kossoff, Park, Jackson 19 Overall Outcome 1, 3-16, 18-20 REVERSED