Ex Parte Kreeger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 2017

14360389 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 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.
14/360,389 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