Ex Parte Kadoury et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2017

14002132 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/002,132 02/26/2014 Samuel Kadoury 2011P00381WOUS 3250
24737 7590 10/19/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue PATEL, NIRAV G
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2017 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 SAMUEL KADOURY, JOCHEN KRUECKER,
JAMES ROBERTSON JAGO, BRADFORD JOHNS WOOD,
ANTOINE COLLET-BILLON, and CECILE DUFOUR
Appeal 2017-006776
Application 14/002,132
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., BETH Z. SHAW, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—9 and 18—25, which represent all the
pending claims. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to using spatial registration of pre­
operative images with a navigation system. See Spec. 1.
Appeal 2017-006776
Application 14/002,132
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below, with disputed
limitations italicized:
1. A method for image registration, comprising:
tracking a scanner probe in at least one position along a skin
surface of a patient;
acquiring image planes corresponding to the at least one
position;
reconstructing a three-dimensional volume of a region of
interest from the image planes;
initializing a search of an image volume to determine candidate
images to register the image volume with the three-dimensional
volume by employing pose information of the scanner probe during
image plane acquisition, and physical constraints of a pose of the
scanner probe; and
registering the image volume with the three-dimensional
volume.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 18, 19, 21, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kriicker et al. (Fusion of realtime
transrectal ultrasound with pre-acquired MRIfor multi-modality prostate
imaging, 6509 Proc. of SPIE 650912-1-650912-12 (2007) “Kriicker”).
Final Act. 4.
The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kriicker and Aravot (US 2011/0082459 Al, issued Apr. 7,
2011). Final Act. 6.
The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kriicker and Guerrero et al. (Real-Time Vessel
Segmentation and Tracking for Ultrasound Imaging Applications, 26 IEEE
Transactions on Medical Imaging 1079—1090 (2007) “Guerrero”). Final
Act. 7.
2
Appeal 2017-006776
Application 14/002,132
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kriicker and Hill et al. (.Medical image registration,
46 Phys. Med. Biol. R1-R45 (2001) “Hill”). Final Act. 8.
The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kriicker and King et al. (Tracking Liver Motion Using 3-
D Ultrasound and a Surface Based Statistical Shape Model, Computational
Imaging Science Group 145—152 (2001) “King”). Final Act. 9.
The Examiner rejected claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kriicker and Hughes et al. (Volume estimation from
multiplanar 2D ultrasound images using a remote electromagnetic position
and orientation sensor, 22 Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 561—572
(1996) “Hughes”). Final Act. 10.1
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Kriicker discloses
“initializing a search of an image volume to determine candidate images to
register the image volume with the three-dimensional volume by employing
pose information of the scanner probe during image plane acquisition, and
physical constraints of a pose of the scanner probe,” as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 11—14; Reply Br. 5—8. Appellants do not proffer sufficient
evidence to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings. We agree with
and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, as discussed in more
detail below. Final Act. 2—11; Ans. 2—3.
1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1—9 and 18—25 under
35 U.S.C. § 101. Ans. 2.
3
Appeal 2017-006776
Application 14/002,132
First, Appellants argue that Kriicker’s identification of ultrasound
images is not a “search of an image volume to determine candidate images.”
App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 6. Yet, Appellants do not explain sufficiently why
Kriicker’s disclosure is not a “search of an image volume to determine
candidate images.” As support for this portion of the claim in the “Summary
of Claimed Subject Matter” in the Appeal Brief, Appellants merely point to
Figures 2 and 5, and page 4, lines 21-24. App. Br. 4. However, these
portions of the Specification fail to clarify how a “search of an image
volume to determine candidate images” is not anticipated by Kriicker’s
disclosure, based on the Examiner’s findings. Appellants do not provide
persuasive evidence to rebut the Examiner’s finding that the scope of
“search of an image volume” is disclosed by the selection of images
described in the cited sections of Kriicker. Ans. 3^4. Appellants therefore
do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Kriicker discloses
the claimed “search of an image volume to determine candidate images.”
Appellants also contend that Kriicker “does not disclose that the
calibration transformation factors in the physical constraints of the pose of
the scanner probe” because Kriicker is “silent with respect to these features.”
App. Br. 14. Appellants provide insufficient evidence that the claims limit
“physical constraints of the pose of the scanner probe” in a way that, under a
broad but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Kriicker’s
disclosure. Ans. 2—3. “[T]he PTO gives claims their ‘broadest reasonable
interpretation.’” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324, (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting
In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Appellants argue that
Kriicker’s use of a tracked needle tip does not involve the use of any
“physical constraints” of a pose of the scanner probe. Reply Br. 7.
4
Appeal 2017-006776
Application 14/002,132
Appellants have not explained persuasively why using the tracked needle tip
as a point target in Kriicker is not a disclosure of a “physical constraint.”2
The Examiner finds Kriicker uses the position of the fiducial in the 2D
ultrasound image in relation to the position of the probe in determining
images to register. Ans. 3. Appellants do not explain sufficiently why this
fact finding is in error.
For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments. Appellants do not persuasively distinguish claim 1 from
Kriicker’s disclosures, or proffer sufficient evidence to show that the
Examiner’s findings are in error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1. With respect to the remaining claims, Appellants present
essentially the same argument as claim 1. App. Br. 14—24. For the same
reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1, we sustain the rejection of the
remaining pending claims.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—9 and 18—25 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
2 We note that 35 U.S.C. § 112 “puts the burden of precise claim drafting
squarely on the applicant.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
5