Ex Parte Fraser et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 24, 2019

13990201 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/990,201 05/29/2013 John Douglas Fraser
24737 7590 05/29/2019
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.
2010P01271WOUS 1069
EXAMINER
SIRIPURAPU, RAJEEV P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2019 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN DOUGLAS FRASER and HUA XIE 1
Appeal 2018-002313
Application 13/990,201
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
John Douglas Fraser and Hua Xie (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection of claims 1, 4--18, and 21. We
have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to an ultrasonic diagnostic imaging
system for shear wave analysis method, and a corresponding method.
1 Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., is identified as the real party-in-
interest in this appeal. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-002313
Application 13/990,201
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as
follows:
1. An ultrasonic diagnostic imaging system for shear wave
analysis comprising:
an ultrasonic array probe comprising a two dimensional array of
transducer elements;
a beamformer controller configured to provide control signals to
the ultrasonic array probe, wherein the control signals cause the
two dimensional array of transducer elements to:
transmit a push beam sheet along a predetermined vector,
wherein the push beam sheet is formed by the two
dimensional array of transducer elements transmitting a
plurality of ultrasonic bursts at a corresponding plurality
of focal points and moving the plurality of focal points
during transmission of the plurality of ultrasonic bursts to
form a corresponding plurality of line sources; and
transmit tracking pulses along tracking lines adjacent to
the predetermined vector, and receive echo signals from
points along the tracking lines;
a memory for storing received tracking line echo data;
a motion detector responsive to the tracking line echo data and
configured to detect a shear wave passing through locations of
the tracking lines; and
a display for displaying a characteristic of the shear wave,
wherein the beamformer controller is further configured to
provide control signals to the ultrasonic array probe, wherein the
control signals cause the two dimensional array of transducer
elements to transmit one or more background motion tracking
lines and receive background motion echo signals from a focus
outside of a focal depth of the push beam sheet at different
2
Appeal 2018-002313
Application 13/990,201
times, wherein the motion detector is configured to compare
background motion echo signals received at different times to
sense background motion in a tissue.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects:
(i) claims 1, 4--12, 16, 18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Hazard (US 2010/0191113 Al, published July 29, 2010)
in view of Sarvazyan (US 5,810,731, issued Sept. 22, 1998), Hazard (US
2010/0069751 Al, published Mar. 18, 2010), 2 Nightingale et al. "On the
feasibility of remote palpation using acoustic radiation force," J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 110(1 ), July 2001 (hereinafter "Nightingale"), and Yao (US
2011/0066030 Al, published Mar. 17, 2011);
(ii) claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over
Hazard in view of Sarvazyan, Nightingale, and Yao; and
(iii) claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable
over Hazard in view of Sarvazyan, Hazard II, Nightingale, Yao, and Hazard
(US 2010/0286520 Al, published Mar. 18, 2010). 3
2 Hereinafter referred to as "Hazard II," in order to provide consistency with
the manner in which the Examiner and Appellants refer to the reference.
3 Hereinafter referred to as "Hazard III," in order to provide consistency with
the manner in which the Examiner and Appellants refer to the reference.
3
Appeal 2018-002313
Application 13/990,201
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4-12, 16, 18, and 21--35 USC §103(a)--Hazard/Sarvazyan/
Hazard II/Nightingale/Yao
The Examiner presents findings directed to various teachings of the
cited references said to be pertinent to the limitations found in claim 1, and,
in particular, relies on Yao as disclosing a technique in which:
an ultrasound probe comprising a two dimensional array of
transducer elements [is used] to transmit a focused push pulse
[which] comprises transmitting an ultrasonic burst focused at a
first depth and changing the focal point of the ultrasonic burst
during transmission of the ultrasonic burst ( see Figs. 1 and 4--7,
abstract, and para 12-21, 40, and 41 ).
Non-Final Act. 5. The Examiner similarly finds, with respect to Yao, that:
Yao also discloses a device wherein the push beam sheet is
formed by the array of transducer elements transmitting a
plurality of ultrasonic bursts at a corresponding plurality of
focal points and moving the plurality of focal points during
transmission of the plurality of ultrasonic bursts to form a
corresponding plurality of line sources ... noting that the sheet
in Yao is formed by moving pulse bursts from top to bottom or
bottom to top in a line.
Id. at 6.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have
combined the teachings of Hazard and Yao "because doing so would
predictably improve the strength of the push pulse and cover a larger area
than a single pulse or line would alone." Id.
Appellants maintain that the above findings directed to the Yao
reference are in error, in that a push beam sheet "is formed by a plurality of
line sources," and that "the plurality of pulses taught by Yao is not
equivalent to a plurality of line sources." Appeal Br. 10-11. Further,
Appellants aver that "Yao does not teach or suggest moving the focal point
4
Appeal 2018-002313
Application 13/990,201
of the push pulses during a single pulse to form a line source. Rather, Yao
teaches transmitting a plurality of single pulses in sequence to form a
plurality of point sources." Id. at 11. Appellants explain that, in Yao, the
focal point is moved in between the transmission of pulses to achieve the
spaced point sources. Id.
The Examiner responds that "[t]he limitation of [']during a single
pulse['] has no basis in the claims," and that "[t]he claims in no way
comprise a single pulse requirement or a temporal requirement." Ans. 6.
The Examiner further construes the claims (presumably, starting with
independent claim 1) as follows:
Id.
the claims merely recite that the pulses are formed during
transmission. Transmission is a broad term that implies any
time in which ultrasound is transmitted. Presently, [']during
transmission['] has little practical limiting effect on the claims
because transmission is any time pulses, bursts, lines are being
created to form the claimed sheet.
Appellants have the better position. Claim 1 requires not only that
pulses are formed during transmission, but also that a plurality of ultrasonic
bursts be transmitted at a plurality of focal points and that the plurality of
focal points is moved "during transmission" of the plurality of bursts to form
the corresponding plurality of line sources that results in a push beam
"sheet." Appeal Br., Claims Appendix.
The use of the term "during" provides a temporal aspect, and
Appellants' reference to a single burst is not meant to imply some "single
burst" limitation in the claims, but rather to make the point that, in order for
the focal points to be moved "during" burst transmissions, the focal points
5
Appeal 2018-002313
Application 13/990,201
are to be moved "during" the time that a given pulse is being transmitted,
and that this is done a plurality of times.
Appellants' arguments demonstrate that, even if the teachings of
Hazard and Yao, as well as the other cited references, are combined, the
combined teachings do not yield a system or method in which a two
dimensional array of transducers transmits a plurality of ultrasonic bursts at
corresponding focal points, and "moving the plurality of focal points during
transmission of' the bursts. Appellants appear to be correct that Yao
discloses moving a focal point along a single line in between, i.e., not
during, successive bursts. The Examiner does not establish that Yao or any
of the other cited references discloses the moving of a focal point of an
ultrasonic burst during transmission of that burst.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4--12, 16, 18,
and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hazard in view
of Sarvazyan, Hazard II, Nightingale, and Yao.
Claims 13-15--35 US. C. § 103 (a)--Hazard/Sarvazyan/Nightingale/Yao
The rejection of independent claim 13 suffers from the same
deficiencies as does the rejection of claim 1, in terms of the erroneous
findings relative to Yao and the structure and method resulting from the
combination of Hazard and Yao. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 13-15
over Hazard, Sarvazyan, Hazard II, and Yao, is not sustained.
Claims 16 and 17--35 US. C. § 103 (a)--Hazard/Sarvazyan/Hazard III
Nightingale/Yao/Hazard III
The Examiner does not rely on Hazard III in any manner that would
remedy the deficiencies of the base rejection employing the combination of
6
Appeal 2018-002313
Application 13/990,201
Hazard and Yao. The rejection of claims 16 and 17 is therefore not
sustained.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 4--18, and 21 are reversed.
REVERSED
7