Ex Parte Bercoff et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2019

12092699 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/092,699 05/05/2008
3000 7590 07/02/2019
CAESAR RIVISE, PC
7 Penn Center, 12th Floor
1635 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2212
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeremy Bercoff
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Cl279/20003 5068
EXAMINER
BOR, HELENE CATHERINE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2019 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):
patents@crbcp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEREMY BERCOFF, CLAUDE COHEN-BACRIE, and
JACQUES SOUQUET
Appeal2018-003995
Application 12/092,699
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jeremy Bercoff et al. ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-6 and 9-17, which are all
the pending claims. See Appeal Br. 1; Final Act. 1 (Office Action
Summary). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Super Sonic
Imagine. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003995
Application 12/092,699
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' disclosed invention "relates to the general field of probes
intended for ultrasonic imaging, also called 'echographic imaging,"' and
"more particularly relates to methods and probes with which viscoelastic
properties may be imaged, based on the use of ultrasonic radiation pressure."
Spec., p. 1, 11. 5-10. Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced
below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An ultrasonic imaging probe for imaging a medium,
compnsmg:
a first type of ultrasonic transducers configured to
perform an ultrasonic imaging of the medium, having a first
focus in the medium and a first resonance frequency, and
a second type of ultrasonic transducers configured to
generate a stress producing transient movements of the imaged
medium, having a second focus in the medium and a second
resonance frequency,
wherein the second focus generates said stress producing
transient movements as deep as depth of ultrasonic imaging
obtained with the first focus, and the second resonance
frequency is lower than the first resonance frequency,
the first and second type of ultrasonic transducers having
different focuses so that field of said stress producing transient
movements is larger than field of said ultrasonic imaging while
maintaining said probe in a fixed position relative to said
medium,
the first and the second types being configured to operate
at least in a coupled mode wherein the first and the second
types are synchronized so as to image the medium during
progression of the transient movements to obtain images of
progression of transient modification of the medium.
2
Appeal2018-003995
Application 12/092,699
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Ishibashi
Trahey
Hynynen
us 5,984,881
US 2004/0068184 Al
US 6,984,209 B2
Nov. 16, 1999
Apr. 8, 2004
Jan. 10,2006
Jeremy Bercoff et al., Supersonic Shear Imaging: A New Technique
for Soft Tissue Elasticity Mapping, from IEEE Transactions on
Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, Vol. 51, No. 4,
pp. 396-409 (IEEE April 2004) ("Bercoff')
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 1---6, 10-13, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Hynynen, Trahey, and
Bercoff. Final Act. 2-5.
II. Claims 9, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Hynynen, Trahey, Bercoff, and
Ishibashi. Id. at 5---6.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting all the claims, the Examiner acknowledges that "Hynynen
and Trahey fail to teach different focuses," between first and second types of
ultrasonic transducers, so that the field generated by the second transducers
is larger than the field generated by the first transducers, as recited in the
claims. Final Act. 4; see Appeal Br., Claims App. For evidence teaching
3
Appeal2018-003995
Application 12/092,699
this feature, the Examiner relies on Bercoff. Final Act. 4 ( citing Bercoff,
p. 396 (last paragraph), Fig. 2).
However, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's reliance on
Bercoff does not sufficiently establish a finding that the reference applied
teaches different focuses between (i) a first type of transducer configured to
image the medium and (ii) a second type of transducer configured to
generate stress producing transient movements, so that the field generated by
the second transducers is larger than the field generated by the first
transducers, as recited in the claims. Reply Br. 5; see id. at 2-5; see also
Appeal Br. 4, 6 ( arguing that Bercoff teaches only one type of transducer
and thus does not teach different focuses between first and second types of
transducers as in the claims).
From our review, Bercoff teaches a technique of supersonic shear
imaging (SSI) relating to a source of shear waves, where the source moves
faster than the shear waves themselves, and is "created by successively
focusing the ultrasonic 'pushing' beam at different depths" of the medium,
where a single scanner is able to both generate this supersonic source and
also image the propagation of the resulting shear waves. Bercoff, p. 396
(final paragraph (relied on by the Examiner) and Abstract) ( emphasis
added). In other words, although the SSI technique taught in Bercoff
includes different focus depths for one propagated beam ( which appears to
correspond with the second type of transducers), this teaching does not relate
to different focuses between a first type of transducers (imaging) and a
second type of transducers ( stress producing), as the claims recite.
We note that it may be the case that Bercoff's teaching of successively
focusing the pushing beam ( second type of transducers) at different depths
4
Appeal2018-003995
Application 12/092,699
might result in at least some focuses that are different from those of the
imaging (first type of transducers), particularly if used in combination with a
teaching of first and second types of transducers (as in Hynynen). Even if
this were the case, it is unclear whether such a difference would result in the
field generated by the second type of transducers necessarily being larger
than the field generated by the first type of transducers, as recited in the
claims. Nevertheless, we must review the rejection presented by the
Examiner, and we decline to speculate as to any potential rejection that is
not before us for review. On this record, the Examiner's stated reliance on
Bercoff is insufficient to establish a finding for the disputed limitation in
question.
Accordingly, because the Examiner's rejections are premised on
findings that are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, we do
not sustain them.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1---6, 10-13,
15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hynynen,
Trahey, and Bercoff.
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 9, 14, and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hynynen, Trahey,
Bercoff, and Ishibashi.
REVERSED
5