Ex Parte Demeester et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2016

12740358 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121740,358 04/29/2010 Gordon D. Demeester
38107 7590 07/28/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2007P01449WOUS 8202
EXAMINER
PATEL,NEHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2016 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):
marianne.fox@philips.com
debbie.henn@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 GORDON D. DEMEESTER, MICHAEL A. MORICH, and
TIMOTHY P. EAGAN
Appeal2014-003000 1
Application 12/740,3582
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-14, and 16-27. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Sept.
17, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Jan. 8, 2014), and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Nov. 12, 2013), Advisory Action
("Adv. Act.," July 2, 2013), and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed
Apr. 18, 2013).
2 Appellants identify Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-003000
Application 12/740,358
CLAIMED fNVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates generally to imaging systems
involving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission
tomography (PET). Spec. 1, 11. 5-7.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. An imaging system, including:
a magnetic resonance (MR) scanner that scans a region of
interest in a subject to generate image data of the region of
interest during a physiological cycle;
a processor that divides the physiological cycle into a
plurality of frames, associates the MR image data to
corresponding frames in the physiological cycle, and
reconstructs a series of MR images to generate a motion model
of the region of interest during the physiological cycle;
a positron emission tomography (PET) scanner that
collects PET data from the region of interest during the frames
of the physiological cycle; and
a PET reconstruction processor that uses the motion model
to generate a PET
image in one or more reference frames of the physiological
cycle; and
a vital signs monitor (VSM) that monitors the
physiological cycle in the subject as the MR scanner scans the
region of interest;
wherein the processor analyzes the motion model to
determine an amount of detected motion in each frame of the
cyclic physiological signal, identifies a frame in which a smallest
amount of motion occurred during the MR scan, and gates the
PET scanner to collect data during the identified frame.
2
Appeal2014-003000
Application 12/740,358
REJECTIONS 3
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-14, and 16-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Shao (US 2003/0233039 Al, pub. Dec. 18,
2003) and Weese (US 2005/0226527 Al, pub. Oct. 13, 2005). 4
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Shao, Weese, and Mizuta (US 8,059,880 B2, iss. Nov. 15, 2011).
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2, 5, 6, and 8-13
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Shao does not disclose
or suggest "a vital signs monitor (VSM) that monitors the physiological
cycle in the subject as the MR scanner scans the region of interest" and "the
processor analyzes the motion model to determine an amount of detected
motion in each frame of the cyclic physiological signal, identifies a frame in
which a smallest amount of motion occurred during the MR scan, and gates
the PET scanner to collect data during the identified frame," as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 8-10; see also Reply Br. 3--4. The Examiner relies, in the
Final Office Action, on paragraphs 28-33, 37, 48, and 50 of Shao as
disclosing the argued limitations. Final Act. 6-8. But we find nothing in the
cited paragraphs that discloses the argued limitations.
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Ans. 3.
4 The Examiner acknowledges as inadvertent error the identification at page
4 of the Final Action of canceled claims 4, 7, and 15 among the claims
subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Ans. 4.
3
Appeal2014-003000
Application 12/740,358
Shao relates to adapting image registration and fusion to compensate
for physiological motion during imaging. Shao i-f 1. CT scanner 62 and PET
scanner 64 cooperate to obtain patient information through different imaging
modalities. Id. i-f 28. CT scanner 62 uses X-rays to form images depicting
the internal structure of subject 66. Id. PET scanner 64 uses positron
emissions to form images depicting physiological functions within the
subject. Id. Because some tissue, such as bone, attenuates the radiation data
more than other tissue, reconstruction processor 102 adjusts emission
radiation data to correct such attenuation. Id. i-f 32.
A non-rigid image registration is performed on the CT and PET
images with physiological modeled organ motions, such as respiratory or
cardiac motion. Id. i-f 33. These motions are mathematically modeled using
a priori knowledge from other sources of the directions of the motions and
physical constraints. Id. i-fi-133, 50. An organ or body contour is determined
pixel by pixel based on threshold-based CT image segmentation data. Id.
i-fi-136-37. Three-dimensional non-uniform rational B-splines (NURBS)
surfaces are used to describe complex biological shapes. Id. i-fi-139-46.
Applying a transformation matrix M to control points on the NURBS surface
modifies the shape of the NURBS surface. Id. i-fi-146-48. The matrix M can
be determined for an organ by comparing control points of the organ at two
states, such as the beginning and end of a respiratory cycle. Id. i-f 48.
The Examiner interprets a vital sign as "physiological constraints of
the system," and a vital sign monitor as "anything in Shao that obtain[ s]
physiological constraints of the subject." Ans. 6. The Examiner, thus,
reasons that the non-rigid image registration process described at paragraph
4
Appeal2014-003000
Application 12/740,358
33 of Shao constitutes "a vital system monitor," because the process obtains
the physiological constraints of the subject. Id.
However, the Examiner's interpretation is not supported by the
language of claim 1. Claim 1 recites "a vital signs monitor (VSM) that
monitors the physiological cycle in the subject as the MR scanner scans the
region of interest." We conclude that a "vital system monitor" does not
constitute merely retrieving physiological constraints "from some a priori
knowledge from outside sources" (Shao i-f 33) as the Examiner proposes, but
instead requires a device that monitors a physiological cycle of the subject
during the MR scan. See, e.g., Spec. at 6, 11. 3-12 (describing a VSM as a
device, such as an electrocardiograph, respiratory monitor, or pulse monitor,
coupled to a subject by leads for monitoring one or more cyclic events in a
subject during MRI and/or PET scans); id. at 10:20-22 (additional
exemplary embodiments of the VSM include an ultrasound device for
diaphragm tracking, and/or a device for monitoring blood pressure pulses for
cardiac monitoring). Thus, we agree with Appellants (App. Br. 9) that Shao
lacks any description of a VSM for monitoring the physiological cycle in the
subject, as called for in claim 1.
We also agree with the Appellants (App. Br. 9) that nothing in
paragraphs of Shao cited in the Final Office Action discloses or suggests
"the processor analyzes the motion model to determine an amount of
detected motion in each frame of the cyclic physiological signal, identifies a
frame in which a smallest amount of motion occurred during the MR scan,
and gates the PET scanner to collect data during the identified frame," as
recited in claim 1. The cited portions describe with reference to Figure 2 is a
combined CT/PET system that uses different imaging modalities to obtain
5
Appeal2014-003000
Application 12/740,358
patient data, corrects attenuation due to bone tissue, and models
physiological motion based on a priori knowledge from other sources. But
nothing teaches or suggests determining an amount of detected motion in
each frame of the cyclic physiological signal, let alone identifying a frame in
which a smallest amount of motion occurred during the MR scan, and gating
the PET scanner to collect data during the identified frame.
In response, the Examiner relies on paragraph 70 of Shao as
disclosing the argued limitation. Ans. 5-6; see also Adv. Act. 2. Shao at
paragraph 70 describes rigidly aligning a CT image with a PET image before
the non-rigid registration process when the imaging modalities are discrete
systems instead of the combined CT/PET system described with respect to
Figure 2. The rigid transformation considers regions of the body that are
rigid (i.e., relatively insensitive to respiratory motion) and applies a known
rigid registration algorithm, such as mutual information, local-correlation,
and cross-correlation. Shao i-f 70.
Because rigid regions in the body are relatively insensitive to
respiratory motion, the Examiner concludes that Shao' s "process of
obtaining rigid transformation" teaches "identif[ying] a frame in which a
smallest amount of motion occurred during the MR scan," as recited in claim
1. Ans. 5---6 (citing Shao i-f 70).
The difficulty with the Examiner's finding is that nothing in the cited
portion suggests monitoring a physiological cycle, let alone dividing the
physiological cycle into a plurality of frames and "identify[ing] a frame in
which a smallest amount of motion occurred during an MR scan," as
required by claim 1. Rather, the cited passage describes identifying an area
6
Appeal2014-003000
Application 12/740,358
on the scan where the body is considered rigid (e.g., insensitive to
respiratory motion) for applying a rigid transformation.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 1 and claims 2, 5, 6, and 8-
12, which depend therefrom.
Independent Claim 13 and Dependent Claims 13, 14, and 16-21
Independent claim 13 includes language substantially similar to the
language of claim 1, and stands rejected based on the same rationale applied
with respect to claim 1. Final Act. 8-10. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 13,
claims 14, and 16-21, which depend therefrom, for the same reasons set
forth with respect to claim 1.
Independent Claim 22 and Dependent Claim 23
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Shao does
not disclose or suggest "associating each line of response with one of the
plurality of frames of the physiological cycle," and "adjusting a trajectory of
each line of response, outside of the reference frame, in accordance with
relative region of interest motion between the MR image corresponding to
the same frame and the MR image corresponding to the reference frame," as
recited in claim 22. App. Br. 18-20; Reply Br. 10-12. In the Final Office
Action, the Examiner relies on paragraphs 28 and 32 of Shao as describing
the argued limitations. Final Act. 11. In the Answer, the Examiner
additionally cites Shao at paragraphs 33, 37, and 48. Ans. 9-11.
We have reviewed the paragraphs cited by the Examiner. Yet we find
nothing in any of the cited paragraphs that teaches or suggests the argued
7
Appeal2014-003000
Application 12/740,358
limitations. For example, in the Answer the Examiner finds that
reconstructed data, as described at paragraph 32 of Shao, describes
associating each line of response associated with one of a plurality of frames
of a physiological cycle, as recited in claim 22. See Ans. 10. And the
Examiner determines that paragraph 33 of Shao describes adjusting the
trajectory of each line of the response. Id. Paragraphs 32-33 of Shao
describe correcting PET emission data to correct for attenuation and
mathematically modeling physiological motion using a priori knowledge.
But we fail to see anything that describes or suggests associating a line of
response with a frame of the physiological cycle, let alone adjusting a
trajectory of each line of response outside the reference frame, as recited in
claim 22.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 22 and dependent claim 23.
Independent Claim 24
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Shao does
not disclose or suggest "monitoring a physiological cycle in the subject
during MR data acquisition," and "employing the motion model to infer
displacement of the region of interest during each frame of the physiological
cycle during the PET scan," as recited in claim 24. App. Br. 20-21; Reply
Br. 13.
The Examiner finds that Shao's description at paragraph 33 of
performing a non-rigid registration of CT and PET images with
physiological modeled organ motions (e.g., respiratory motion and cardiac
motion) discloses the argued step of monitoring a physiological cycle in the
8
Appeal2014-003000
Application 12/740,358
subject during MR data acquisition. Ans. 11. However, we find this
argument unpersuasive for similar reasons set forth with respect to claim 1.
The Examiner finds that paragraphs 28-32, 37, and 48 of Shao
describe "employing the motion model to infer displacement of the region of
interest during each frame of the [monitored] physiological cycle during the
PET scan," as recited in claim 24. Final Act. 12-13. These paragraphs
describe correcting PET emission data to correct for attenuation,
mathematically modeling physiological motion using a priori knowledge,
finding an organ contour using segmentation, and applying a transformation
matrix to modify the shape of the surface. However, we find nothing that
describes or suggests monitoring the physiological cycle in the subject
during MR data acquisition, let alone employing the motion model to infer
displacement during each frame of the monitored physiological cycle.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 24.
Independent Claim 25 and Dependent Claims 26 and 27
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Shao does
not disclose or suggest "a processor that correlates motion during the
physiological cycle to the MR images and motion data for the physiological
cycle [in which the region of interest of the subject was scanned by the MR
scanner], and characterizes the motion as displacement, relative to a
reference position, as a function of time during the physiological cycle," and
"a PET reconstruction processor that uses the motion characterization to
generate a PET image at the reference position of the physiological cycle,"
as recited in claim 25. App. Br. 21-23; Reply Br. 13-15. The Examiner
9
Appeal2014-003000
Application 12/740,358
relies on paragraphs 11, 28-32, 37, and 48 of Shao as disclosing the argued
limitations. Final Act. 14--15; see also Ans. 11-12.
We have reviewed each of the paragraphs cited by the Examiner.
However, we conclude that nothing discloses or suggests the argued
limitations. Paragraph 11 of Shao, for example, provides an overview of
Shao' s non-rigid registration of images with physiological modeled organ
motions. The method of Shao includes obtaining a first and second image
dataset of a region of interest of a subject, and providing a "general model"
of physiological motion for the region of interest. Id. i-f 11. Shao' s method
adapts the general model with data derived from the first image data set, and
then applies the physiological model to the second image data set to create a
"combined image." Id. But Shao's combined image does not disclose or
suggest correlating motion during the physiological cycle of the subject to
the MR images and motion data for the physiological cycle, and
characterizing the motion as displacement, relative to a reference position, as
a function of time during the physiological cycle.
The other cited paragraphs of Shao include descriptions for
determining an organ contour using segmentation data, and applying a
transformation matrix to control points on a NURBS surface to modify its
shape, where matrix M can be determined for an organ by comparing control
points of the organ at two states, such as the beginning and end of a
respiratory cycle. However, nothing in the cited portions describes
correlating motion during the physiological cycle of the subject to the MR
images and motion data for the physiological cycle, and characterizing the
motion as displacement, relative to a reference position, as a function of time
during the physiological cycle, and a PET reconstruction processor that uses
10
Appeal2014-003000
Application 12/740,358
the motion characterization to generate a PET image at the reference
position of the physiological cycle.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claim 25 and dependent claims 26
and 27.
Dependent Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1. The rejection of claim 3 does not cure
the deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejections of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to independent
claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-14, and 16-27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
11