Ex Parte Bercoff et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 28, 201912092699 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation