Ex Parte Demeester et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 26, 201612740358 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation