Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 23, 2018

14369697 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/369,697 06/29/2014 Jun Bo Li
24737 7590 04/25/2018
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.
2011P02046WOUS01 5687
EXAMINER
SHENG,XIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2018 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):
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 JUN BO LI, JING PING XU, YINAN CHEN, and
YUNRONGZHANG
Appeal2017-009592
Application 14/369,697
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-009592
Application 14/369,697
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 2, 4--8, 10-13, 15, and 16. Claims 3, 9, and 14 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to needle visualization enhancement in
ultrasound images. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with
dispositive limitations emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method of needle visualization enhancement in ultrasound
imaging, comprising acts of:
performing by a processor a Radon transform (RT) on a
sequence of frames to detect line features in the frames, a frame
comprising ultrasound (US) radio-frequency (RF) data obtained
during monitoring the insertion of a needle into a subject or an
US image reconstructed from the RF data;
removing by the processor line features which remain
substantially stationary among the frames as false needles while
locating a line feature which extends among the frames as the
needle;
overlaying by the processor the location of the line feature as
the needle on an US image of a frame to produce an enhanced
image to be displayed; and
outputting an output signal by the processor for producing the
enhanced image to be displayed,
wherein said act of removing of line features which remain
substantially stationary among the frames as false needles while
locating a line feature which extends among the frames as the
needle comprises acts of:
for two consecutive frames of the sequence after the RT,
determining the location difference of a detected line feature
between the two consecutive frames, and accumulating the
2
Appeal2017-009592
Application 14/369,697
location differences of the line feature to obtain an
accumulated location difference of the line feature; and
removing a line feature as false needle if the accumulated
location difference of the line feature is below a threshold,
and locating a line feature as the needle if the accumulated
location difference of the line feature is above the threshold.
App. Br. 24 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hammoud et al. US 2006/0204042 Al Sept. 14, 2006
Bovik et al. US 2010/0104148 Al Apr. 29, 2010
Pagoulatos et al. 2010/0121190 Al May 13, 2010
Peng et al. US 2012/0004533 Al Jan. 5, 2012
Kesner et al. WO 2011/137336 Al Nov. 3, 2011
Novotny et al., GPU Based Real-Time Instrument Tracking with Three
Dimensional Ultrasound, MEDICAL IMAGE ANALYSIS 58-65 (2006)
("Novotny")
Barva et al., Radial Radon transform dedicated to micro-object
localization from radio frequency ultrasound signal,
INTERNATIONAL ULTRASONICS, FERROELECTRICS, AND FREQUENCY
CONTROL JOINT 50TH ANNIVERSARY CONFERENCE 1836-1839
(2004) ("Barva")
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Novotny, Bovik, Peng, and Hammoud.
Final Act. 10-21.
3
Appeal2017-009592
Application 14/369,697
Claims 4, 10, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Novotny, Bovik, Peng, Hammoud, and Kesner. Final Act.
21-23.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Novotny, Bovik, Peng, Hammoud, and Barva. Final Act.
23-24.
Claims 6 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Novotny, Bovik, Peng, Hammoud, and Pagoulatos. Final
Act. 24--26.
APPELLANTS' CONTENTION 1
Appellants contend Hammoud' s running average fails to teach
accumulating a location differences of line features that is used to remove a
line feature if the accumulated location difference of the line feature is below
a threshold as required by the claims. App. Br. 14--20.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 2,
4--8, 10-13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We agree with Appellants'
conclusions as to this rejection of the claims.
The Examiner finds Peng' s identification of invalid locations based on
a geodesic distance calculated between multiple video frames of an image
and pruning of candidate locations teaches or suggests determining the
location differences of a detected line feature between two consecutive
1 We note Appellants raise additional contentions of error but we do not
reach them as our resolution of this contention is dispositive of the appealed
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
4
Appeal2017-009592
Application 14/369,697
frames and removing a line feature if the location difference of the line
feature between frames is below a threshold. Final Act. 14--15. The
Examiner further finds Hammoud's running average of the distance between
lines includes accumulating the differences. 2 Final Act. 16-17. Thus,
according to the Examiner, the combination of Peng and Hammoud teaches
or suggests the disputed limitations including removing a line feature as a
false needle if the accumulated location difference of the line feature is
below a threshold. Final Act. 16-17.
Appellants contend, inter alia, "comparing an average distance [as
taught by Hammoud] ... to a threshold, does not disclose or suggest
comparing accumulated distance to the threshold, even if averaging involves
accumulation." App. Br. 16. We agree with Appellants.
Hammoud discloses calculating a running average of distances.
Although one skilled in the art may well have known that, in calculating an
average value, an intermediate step includes accumulating or summing the
individual distances, Hammoud fails to disclose using the result of that
intermediate step, i.e., the accumulated location difference, as a value to be
compared to a threshold. Instead, Hammoud discloses using an average
value. As explained by Appellants, comparing an average value is different
than comparing an accumulated value to a threshold. App. Br. 16-19. The
Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to persuade us the
2 The Examiner states "Peng is not cited to teach 'accumulating the location
differences of the line feature to obtain an accumulated location difference
of the line feature'. Bovik is cited instead to teach this limitation." Final
Act. 4 (emphasis omitted). However, we are unable to identify any such
application of Bovik and the finding is contrary to the Examiner's response
to Appellants' argument indicating that Hammoud, not Bovik, is cited for
teaching the disputed limitation. App. Br. 20-21; Ans. 11.
5
Appeal2017-009592
Application 14/369,697
two comparisons are equivalent or that Hammoud's average comparison
teaches the claimed accumulated value comparison to a threshold.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Novotny, Bovik, Peng,
and Hammoud and, for the same reason, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 7 and 12 which include substantially the same limitation,
or the rejection of dependent claims 2, 8, 13, and 16. Furthermore, we do
not sustain the rejections of claims 4---6, 10, 11, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as the Examiner's applications of the Kesner, Barva, and
Pagoulatos references fail to cure the deficiency in the base rejection
addressed supra.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10-13,
15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6