Ex Parte Kreeger et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 6, 201714360389 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/360,389 05/23/2014 Kevin Kreeger 19.078011C US 5368 80869 7590 11/08/2017 HologicATsta IP Law Group (R2) 21760 Stevens Creek Blvd. Suite 100 Cupertino, CA 95014 EXAMINER BRIER, JEFFERY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2613 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/08/2017 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): nnr @ viplawgroup .com hologicpatentgroup @ hologic .com sp @ viplawgroup. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KEVIN KREEGER, ANDREW P. SMITH, ASHWINI KSHIRSAGAR, JUN GE, YIHENG ZHANG, HAILI CHUI, CHRISTOPHER RUTH, XIANGWEI ZHANG, LIYANG WEI, and JAY STEIN Appeal 2017-006343 Application 14/360,389 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—7, 10—12, and 14—17 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appeal 2017-006343 Application 14/360,389 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to a “system and method for generating a 2D image using mammography and/or tomosynthesis image data” from a plurality of data sources, “by merging the most relevant data from [the] plurality of data sources” (Title (capitalization altered); Spec. 11D- Independent claims 1 and 11, reproduced below, are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. I. A method, comprising: obtaining a plurality of images, each of the images in the plurality having at least one corresponding region; generating a merged image, the merged image also having the at least one corresponding region, wherein the merged image is a synthesized 2D image that is generated by selecting an image source from the plurality of images to source image data for the at least one corresponding region in the merged image by comparing attributes of the at least one corresponding region in each of the plurality of images to identity the image source having preferred attributes; generating a map for a user-selected region in the merged image, whereby the map identifies at least one of the plurality of images that sourced the user-selected region in the merged image; and displaying the at least one of the plurality of images that sourced the user-selected region when the user-selected region is selected by a user. II. A display workstation, comprising: a processor; a display station operatively coupled with the processor; and an interface operatively coupled with the processor, wherein the interface is configured to allow a user to selectively cause the processor to generate and display a merged image on the display station, the merged image comprising a two 2 Appeal 2017-006343 Application 14/360,389 dimensional synthesized image comprising a plurality of regions, wherein at least two of the regions are sourced from different images selected from a group of images, and wherein the group of images include tomosynthesis projection images, tomosynthesis reconstruction slices, mammograms and synthesized 2D images, the interface further configured to allow a user to selectively cause the processor to display three-dimensional information related to a selected region of the merged image on the display station. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1—4, 6, 7, 10-12, 14, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and/or § 102(e) as anticipated by Kumar (US 2011/0178389 Al; published July 21, 2011). (2) The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kumar and Batman (US 2011/0234630 Al; published Sept. 29, 2011). ANALYSIS Claims 1—7 and 10 The Examiner, among other things, finds Kumar teaches “generating a map for a user-selected region in the merged image, whereby the map identifies at least one of the plurality of images that sourced the user- selected region in the merged image,” as recited in claim 1 (Final Act. 8 (citing Kumar || 52, 58—59, 65—66, Figs. 7 and 11); Ans. 15). The Examiner reasons that Kumar’s “registration process performed by shape correspondence processors 444, 446 of Fig. 11 generates a map that identifies at least one of the plurality of images that sourced the user- selected region (ROI) in the merged image” (Ans. 15). We do not agree. 3 Appeal 2017-006343 Application 14/360,389 We agree with Appellants’ arguments that Kumar does not anticipate Appellants’ claim 1 (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3). Particularly, we agree that although Kumar discloses a user-selected region of interest on a blended image of MRI and 3D TRUS (Transrectal Ultrasound) images, Kumar does not generate a map for the user-selected region in the blended image as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3). Particularly, Kumar’s shape correspondence processor 444, cited by the Examiner, merely provides a “shape correspondence 446 . . . which defines a surface transformation from one surface model (e.g., TRUS) to the other (e.g., MRI)” for registering MRI and TRUS volumes before any blended image is created (Reply Br. 2; see Kumar H 61, 68—69). That is, a merged image and the claimed “map for a user-selected region in the merged image'1'’ do not exist when shape correspondence processor 444 and shape correspondence 446 register the MRI and TRUS volumes. The Examiner further cites to “merged image 280 having corresponding regions aligned” in Kumar’s Figure 7 (Ans. 15). The Examiner has not shown, however, nor have we found, that Kumar generates a map for a user-selected region in image 280, for identifying a user-selected region’s source as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 6). Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 10 as anticipated by Kumar. We do not address Appellants’ remaining arguments with respect to claim 1 because the issues discussed supra are dispositive as to the rejection of claim 1. As claim 5 depends from independent claim 1, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection over the combination of Kumar and Batman. 4 Appeal 2017-006343 Application 14/360,389 Claims 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Kumar discloses all the limitations of independent claim 11 (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4). Particularly, Appellants assert the Examiner erred in finding Kumar discloses an interface “configured to allow a user to selectively cause the processor to display three-dimensional information related to a selected region of the merged image on the display station,” as recited in claim 11 (App. Br. 7). Rather, Kumar teaches a user may move between a merged image 280, an MRI image 282, and an ultrasound image 284, but “does not teach or suggest that a user would select a region in the merged image for any reason, much less that three-dimensional information related to a selected region of the merged image would be displayed on a display station” (App. Br. 7). We do not agree. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. Particularly, we agree with the Examiner that Kumar’s “MRI volume . . . and the registered 3D TRUS volume[, which] are visualized. . . blended with [a] ROI [region of interest] overlaid” teach a merged image (including 3D information) in which a user selects “regions within the ROI” for planning biopsy targets and navigating to the targets (see Kumar | 58 (emphasis added); Ans. 16). The user’s chosen regions within the ROI of Kumar’s merged image teach a “selected region of the merged image,” as recited in claim 11 (Ans. 16). We also agree the broadly claimed “‘three-dimensional information’ covers the image itself’ (Ans. 16). Thus, Kumar’s display of a user’s selected “regions within the ROI” teaches display of three- dimensional information related to a selected region of the merged image, as required by claim 11 (Ans. 16—17). 5 Appeal 2017-006343 Application 14/360,389 Thus, for the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 11. We also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent claims 12, 14, 15, and 17, argued for their dependency on claim 11 (App. Br. 7). Claim 16 With respect to dependent claim 16, the Examiner finds Batman’s histogram for displaying relevant and useful image information teaches the claimed “graphical indicator [that] illustrates a depth of attributes within the regions” (Final Act. 16 (citing Batman || 25—27)). Particularly, the Examiner finds “[s]ince [Batman’s] slices are images from a 3D object,. . . the histogram [of Batman] is tied to depth in the 3D object” (Ans. 18 (emphasis added)). Appellants argue “Batman does not provide any details regarding the histogram, which does not necessarily illustrate a depth of. . . attributes” within image regions, as required by claim 16 (Reply Br. 4). We agree with Appellants. Batman merely describes “[measurements associated with the image include image histogram,” which do not disclose any depth of attributes illustrated by the histogram (see Batman 125; App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4). We also agree with Appellants there is no basis for concluding that the histogram mentioned in Batman inherently illustrates a depth of a 3D imaged object (Reply Br. 4—5). As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the rejection of dependent claim 16, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of this claim. 6 Appeal 2017-006343 Application 14/360,389 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)/102(e) is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)/102(e) is reversed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation