Ex Parte Jensen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 201814114619 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/114,619 10/29/2013 23266 7590 09/05/2018 DAUGHERTY & DEL ZOPPO CO., LP.A. 38500 CHARDON ROAD WILLOUGBY HILLS, OH 44094 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jorgen Arendt Jens en 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. BKM-10-7183-PCT-US 6918 EXAMINER NOLAN, JOHN T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2018 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): adelzoppo@dd-iplaw.com carole@dd-iplaw.com mwheeler@dd-iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JORGEN ARENDT JENSEN, YIGANG DU, and HENRIK JENSEN Appeal2017-008497 Application 14/114,619 1 Technology Center 3600 Before JAMES P. CALVE, RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, and FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Jorgen Arendt Jensen et al. ("Appellants") seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-18 and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify Analogic Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2017-008497 Application 14/114,619 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter "relates to ultrasound imaging and more particularly to harmonic ultrasound imaging using synthetic aperture sequential beamforming, with and without pulse inversion." Spec. 1. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A method of generating an ultrasound image, the method compnsmg: actuating a set of transducer elements with at least a first set of pulses causing the set of transducer elements to emit a first ultrasound signal; receiving a first echo signal corresponding to the first ultrasound signal, which includes a fundamental component and a harmonic component; extracting the harmonic component from the first echo signal; generating an ultrasound image based on the extracted harmonic component using multi-stage beamforming and data generated therefrom by beamforming, during a first stage of the multi-stage beamforming, a set of intermediate scan lines based on the harmonic component, wherein the intermediate scan lines have a single transmit focal point; and beamforming, during a second stage of the multi-stage beamforming, the set of intermediate scan lines to generate a focused image. Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.). THE REJECTIONS Appellants seek review of the following rejections: 1. Claims 1---6, 11-13, 15-17, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Powers2 and Son. 3 2 U.S. Patent No. 6,468,216 Bl (issued Oct. 22, 2002) ("Powers"). 3 European Patent App. No. 1,039,312 A2 (pub. Sept. 27, 2000) ("Son"). 2 Appeal2017-008497 Application 14/114,619 2. Claims 7, 8, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Powers, Son, and Steidl. 4 3. Claims 9, 10, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Powers, Son, and Ashfaq. 5 ANALYSIS The Examiner found that Powers discloses the majority of the limitations of claim 1, including "extracting the harmonic component from the first echo signal" and "generating an ultrasound image using multi-stage beamforming." Final Act. 2. The Examiner also found that Powers discloses beamforming a set of intermediate scan lines during a first stage and beamforming the intermediate scan lines to generate a focused image, but does not "explicitly teach generating an ultrasound image based on the extracted harmonic component." Id. at 3. The Examiner found that Son "teaches generating an ultrasound image based on the extracted harmonic component" and "an ultrasound harmonic[]imaging method with a step of extracting second harmonic components being performed prior to a single beamforming step." Id.; Adv. Act. 2 (mailed Oct. 5, 2016). The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious "to modify the method of Powers with the harmonic imaging of Son for the purpose of producing an image based on harmonics because 'the harmonic image has a reduced 4 Charles Steidl, Hui Yao, Pomchai Phukpattaranont, and Emad S. Ebbini Dual-Mode Ultrasound Phased Arrays for Noninvasive Surgery: Post- Beamforming Image Compounding Algorithms for Enhanced Visualization of Thermal Lesions IEEE 429--432 (2002) ("Steidl"). 5 M. Ashfaq, N. Hiittebrauker, C. Hansen, W. Wilkening, and H. Ermert Spatial Compounding with Tissue Harmonic Images and Monostatic Synthetic Aperture Reconstruction 2005 IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium IEEE 1220-1223 (2005) ("Ashfaq"). 3 Appeal2017-008497 Application 14/114,619 artifact and a further improved contrast resolution and lateral resolution, compared with the fundamental image.'" Final Act. 3 ( citing Son ,r 5). The Examiner also found that the "differences in these methods are merely minor variations in evaluating certain parameters chosen from a finite set of well- known options that yield a predictable result and are therefore obvious." Adv. Act. 2. Appellants focus on the order of the steps in claim 1, and specifically the extraction of the harmonic component of the echo signal prior to the multi-stage beamforming. Appeal Br. 4--5. Appellants argue that Powers does not disclose the claimed "intermediate scan lines" because "Powers discloses separating harmonics in the scanlines with the image processor only after" the beamformer in Powers processes echo signals and produces scanlines. Appeal Br. 5. Appellants further argue that there would be no reason to modify Powers with Son by adding Son's extraction of harmonics step because Powers already teaches extracting the harmonics component. Id. Appellants also contend that the proposed combination lacks support and that Powers teaches away from the modification because adding Son's extraction step to Powers would add significant acquisition time, and Powers emphasizes the goal of minimizing acquisition time. Id. ( citing Powers 7:34--43, 12:43-52); see also Reply Br. 3--4. The Examiner, responding to Appellants' arguments in the Answer, further found that Powers discloses intermediate scan lines because the scan lines generated by micro-beamformer 280 are not in a final state, are beamformed in two stages as required by claim 1, and "are just as intermediate in Powers as they are in the present application." Ans. 2-3. The Examiner also found that the portions of Powers cited by Appellants do 4 Appeal2017-008497 Application 14/114,619 not teach away from the proposed combination and that Son's stated advantages apply to a process where extraction of the harmonic component occurs prior to beamforming. Id. at 3--4. The Examiner has the better position here. First, Appellants' argument that Powers fails to disclose the claimed "intermediate scan lines" improperly argues the reference individually. "[O]ne cannot show non- obviousness by attacking references individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCP A 1981) ( citation omitted). Appellants' argument that Powers fails to disclose intermediate scan lines hinges on the failure of Powers to extract the harmonic component prior to beamforming. Appeal Br. 4--5. That argument fails to acknowledge that once Powers is modified by Son, as proposed by the Examiner, the intermediate scan lines will be generated after harmonic extraction. See Ans. 4 ( addressing "modification of Powers with performing harmonic extraction before the multi-stage beam forming step"). Appellants also fail to adequately address or establish error in the Examiner's finding that Powers discloses "intermediate scan lines" because they are not in a final state, are beamformed in two stages, and are "just as intermediate in Powers" as they are in Appellants' specification. Ans. 2-3. Second, regarding the proposed combination, Appellants' argument that one would not add Son's harmonic extraction step to Powers because Powers already performs the step also fails to acknowledge the proposed combination. The Examiner proposes adding Son's harmonic extraction step before multi-stage beamforming, not retaining the harmonic extraction step post-beamforming as disclosed in Powers. Ans. 4. The combination does not add an unnecessary harmonic extraction step as Appellants allege, 5 Appeal2017-008497 Application 14/114,619 but instead moves the step to a point prior to beamforming. Moreover, Appellants' argument that the existence of a beamforming step in Powers obviates that need for the addition of Son's beamforming step ignores the different timing of the steps-Power does not utilize beamforming prior to harmonic extraction as in Son, and therefore adding that step would not be redundant. Third, Appellants fail to establish that Powers teaches away. A reference is said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternate invention but does not "criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage" investigation into the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The cited portions of Powers do not teach away from extracting the harmonic component prior to beamforming because those portions of Powers never mention performing harmonic extraction prior to beamforming. See Powers 7:34--43, 12:43-52. The first passage describes separating the fundamental and harmonic frequency signals. Powers 7:34--43. The second passage describes the goal of minimizing acquisition time, and notes that the preferred approach employs multiple beamforming and/or scanline interpolation. Powers 12:43-52. The Examiner's proposed combination does not preclude the use of either or both of those methods to minimize acquisition time, and the passage never states that performing harmonic extraction prior to beamforming adds unacceptable acquisition time to the method. See id. 6 Appeal2017-008497 Application 14/114,619 Even if we assume that performing harmonic extraction adds to acquisition time as Appellants allege, the cited evidence does not quantify that additional time or criticize or discredit a method that performs harmonic extraction prior to beamforming in a manner that would discourage others from making such a modification. We are not persuaded that Powers teaches away from the proposed combination. We are also persuaded by Son's disclosure of purported advantages in its method, where harmonic extraction occurs prior to beamforming. See Son ,r,r 5, 12. Son does not credit the pre-beamforming harmonic extraction step alone as the basis for the cited advantages, but the fact that Son's overall process produces positive results supports the Examiner's proposed combination. See id. Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellants raise the same arguments with respect to independent claim 11 and dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, and 22. Appeal Br. 5-7. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of those claims for the same reasons we sustain the rejection of claim 1. DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-18 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation