Ex Parte Martins

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

13904200 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 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.
13/904,200 05/29/2013 Bo Martins ANAl 185-US 7367
(BKM-20-7495)
23266 7590 10/02/2017
DRIGGS, HOGG, DAUGHERTY & DEL ZOPPO CO., L.P.A.
38500 CHARDON ROAD
DEPT. DLBH
WILLOUGBY HILLS, OH 44094
EXAMINER
ROZANSKI, MICHAEL T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3786
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
usptocommunications@driggslaw.com
carole@driggslaw.com
mwheeler @ driggslaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BO MARTINS
Appeal 2016-008404
Application 13/904,2001
Technology Center 3700
Before RYAN H. FLAX, TIMOTHY G. MAJORS, and
DEVON ZASTROW NEWMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
NEWMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims to an ultrasound
imaging system. The Examiner entered final rejections for obviousness.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Analogic Corporation, of
Peabody, MA. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-008404
Application 13/904,200
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Background
The Specification discloses that “ultrasound imaging can be used to
generate an image of an internal anatomical structure (e.g., a blood vessel,
etc.) and/or a flow of an internal structure (e.g., flow of blood in a vessel,
etc.).” Spec. 1.
The ability to visualize deep flow, flow of low amplitude,
and very slow flow has been affected by transmit and post­
processing parameters such as a color gain and a color flow
processor wall (or high-pass) filter cut-off frequency. The
working range of these parameters has been based on the extent
to which the generated color flow images include color noise
artifact (non-flow (e.g., noise) perceived as flow and presented
in color as flow) and/or color flash artifact (non-flow motion
above the wall filter cut off frequency in a displayed frame).
Both parameters have been provided as manually adjustable
parameters by a user.
Id. Color noise has been mitigated by having the user turn down the color
gain level through trial and error until an acceptable level of color noise in
the displayed image is reached. Unfortunately, decreasing the color gain
level may also result in lost true signal and, thus, undetected blood flow. Id.
at 2. The Specification discloses an ultrasound imaging system and method
of use that aim to address the above-stated limitations. Id.
The Claims
Claims 1, 3—9, 11, 13, 15, 17—19, 21, and 23—26 are on appeal. Final
Act. I.2 Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
1. An ultrasound imaging system, comprising:
2 Examiner’s Final Action, mailed January 21, 2016.
2
Appeal 2016-008404
Application 13/904,200
an ultrasound transducer array that receives sets of echo
signals produced in response to an ultrasound signal traversing
flowing structure in a portion of a tubular structure of an object
or subject in an imaging field of view;
an image processor that processes the sets of echo signals
and generates a structure image indicative of the portion of the
tubular structure;
a color flow processor that processes the sets of echo
signals and generates color flow images indicative of a flow of
the flowing structure in the portion of the tubular structure,
including a flow direction and a flow magnitude of the flowing
structure in the portion of the tubular structure, wherein the
color flow images include at least one of color noise artifact or
color flash artifact;
a color flow corrector processor that corrects the color
flow images for the at least one of the color noise artifact or the
color flash artifact, producing corrected color flow images,
wherein the color flow corrector processor includes a temporal
median filter that corrects the color flow images for the at least
one of the color noise artifact or the color flash artifact and
produces the corrected color flow images by.
receiving a plurality of color flow images of the
color flow images, including color flow images with the
at least one of the color noise artifact or the color flash
artifact, wherein the received plurality of color flow
images correspond to a same phase point in a motion
cycle of the object or subject but different motion cycles;
and
generating the corrected color flow images with
the received plurality of color flow images by computing
a value at a pixel location of the corrected color flow
images as a median value of values of the pixel location
across the plurality of color flow images; and
a video processor that displays the structure image
and the corrected color flow images superimposed over
the structure image.
3
Appeal 2016-008404
Application 13/904,200
App. Br. 8 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). Claims 11 and 21, the
only other independent claims, also require determining a median value for
each pixel location across the plurality of the color flow images and
correcting the color flow images for noise or artifact by generating corrected
color flow images in which a value at a pixel location of the corrected color
flow images is the median value for that pixel location. Id. at 10—12.
The following rejections are before us to review:
Claims 1,3, 11, 15, 17—19, 21, and 23—26 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Chiao3 in view of Rafter.4
Claims 4—9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Chiao, Rafter, and Dubberstein.5
DISCUSSION
The Examiner has rejected all of the claims on appeal as either
obvious based on Chiao and Rafter or also combined with Dubberstein. The
same issue is dispositive for both rejections.
The Examiner finds that Chiao teaches all of the limitations of the
rejected claims except that Chiao “do[es] not disclose gating the images.”
Ans. 2—\. Specifically with regard to the issues on appeal, the Examiner
finds that Chiao discloses the limitations under two interpretations of the
Chiao reference.6 In the first interpretation, the Examiner finds Chiao
discloses:
3 US 6,760,486 Bl, issued July 6, 2004 (“Chiao”).
4 US 5,735,281, issued April 7, 1998 (“Rafter”).
5 US 6,979,295 B2, issued December 27, 2005 (“Dubberstein”).
6 See Ans. 4, providing first interpretation, and Ans. 5, providing second
interpretation.
4
Appeal 2016-008404
Application 13/904,200
a color flow corrector that corrects the color flow image for the
color noise artifact or the color flash artifact, producing a
corrected color flow image, and includes a temporal median
filter that corrects the noise artifact or flash artifact by receiving
a plurality of color flow images and generating the corrected
color flow images with the received plurality of color flow
images by computing a value at a pixel location as a median
value of values of the pixel location across the plurality of color
flow images (col 6, line 50-col 7, line 12).
Final Act. 3. The Examiner further finds that Chiao discloses
a flash suppression algorithm that is programmed in a CPU 20
and that is a temporal median filter for performing flash
suppression filtering before or after scan conversion (col 6,
lines 50-65). The algorithm comprises the steps of estimating
the flash within an image frame, suppressing the estimated flash
in that frame to produce an enhanced image frame, and
displaying the enhanced image frame. The flash is estimated by
computing the local mean (or median or mode) brightness
image which is obtained from the original image by spatial low-
pass filtering. The flash-suppressed images are scaled to a
given standard deviation and centered at a given mean for
display with proper contrast and brightness and, finally, the
images are smoothed in time by a length N mean or median
filter. The steps are repeated by a processor for each image
frame to suppress flash artifacts in a sequence of images, which
correspond to images of tissue (i.e. heart) motion (col 3, lines 8-
25; col 7, lines 7-55).
Id. at 3^4.
In the second interpretation, the Examiner finds Chiao discloses a
“temporal median filter correspond[ing] to the ‘median filter’ that smooths
the images ‘in time’ as described in Chiao (col 7, lines 39-45; col 8, lines 18-
32).” Ans. 5.
The Examiner finds that Rafter discloses “gating ultrasound color
flow images in order to help minimize artifacts,” and concludes that the
5
Appeal 2016-008404
Application 13/904,200
skilled artisan would have found it obvious “to modify Chiao, to use gating
as taught by Rafter, to help minimize artifacts.” Final Act. at 4.
The issue with respect to this rejection is whether Chiao and Rafter
teach or suggest the claimed subject matter.
Appellant argues that Chiao’s disclosure fails to teach the following
elements of claim 1:
a color flow corrector processor that corrects the color
flow images for the at least one of the color noise artifact or the
color flash artifact, producing corrected color flow images,
wherein the color flow corrector processor includes a temporal
median filter that corrects the color flow images for the at least
one of the color noise artifact or the color flash artifact and
produces the corrected color flow images by:
receiving a plurality of color flow images of the color
flow images, including color flow images with the at least one
of the color noise artifact or the color flash artifact, wherein the
received plurality of color flow images correspond to a same
phase point in a motion cycle of the object or subject but
different motion cycles; and
generating the corrected color flow images with the
received plurality of color flow images by computing a value at
a pixel location of the corrected color flow images as a median
value of values of the pixel location across the plurality of color
flow images.
App. Br. 4. Specifically, Appellant argues that Chiao’s flash suppression
algorithm computes a flash estimate for a pixel “based on a pre-determined
neighborhood of pixels [around] the pixel convolved with a 2-D matrix of
kernel elements,” which Chiao calls “a local mean (or median or mode)
brightness image ... or ‘b’.” Id. at 4—5. Next, Appellant argues, the
original image, pixel by pixel, is multiplied by a flash suppression mask,
which is computed by “dividing a mean brightness of the entire image (a) by
6
Appeal 2016-008404
Application 13/904,200
a summation of ‘a’ and ‘b,’ or mask = a/(a+b).” Id. at 5. Appellant argues
that “in either instance, flash suppression includes scaling a value of a pixel
i,j by a factor that is a function of the mean brightness of the entire image
and a neighborhood(s) of pixels convolved with a 2-D kernel.” Id.
Appellant argues that further processing is performed on the flash-
suppressed image, scaling and smoothing by a filter. Id. Appellant
concludes that “both of these processing steps are performed after the flash
suppression^ meaning] Chiao does not disclose or suggest either [step] is . . .
[used] to generate the flash suppressed image.” Id.
Appellant argues this process of Chiao is different from the claims,
which require “replacing a value of a pixel at location i,j of image N with a
median value of the values of pixels at the location i,j in image N and other
images of the same phase point but different motion cycles.” Id. Appellant
further argues that any post-correction by the median filter of Chiao does not
meet the claim limitation because “[t]he claims require receiving as input
images with color noise artifact or color flash artifact [and] correcting these
images having color noise artifact or color flash artifact for the color noise
artifact or color flash artifact using the median value.” Id.
With regard to the Examiner’s first interpretation of Chiao, the
Examiner responds that
[w]hile Examiner agrees that the first embodiment (described at
col 7, lines 7-55) using only “b” is a function of the same
image, the alternative embodiment clearly takes into account
the pixel values from previous and subsequent frames on a
pixel-by-pixel basis. Therefore, the flash suppression computes
pixel values across the plurality of color flow images. The
algorithm that performs the flash suppression is a temporal
median filter because it generates the corrected color flow
images by computing a pixel value at a location as a median
7
Appeal 2016-008404
Application 13/904,200
value across the plurality of color flow images. Furthermore, it
is noted that the computing is not limited to mean values, as
median is explicitly described in Chiao as an alternative (col 7,
line 14).
Ans. 4.
With regard to the Examiner’s second interpretation, the Examiner
responds that the limitation is met despite that the median filtering occurs
after the flash suppression because
this median filter receives flash suppressed images and
performs an additional correction of the flash, since the flash
suppression algorithm would not remove every single artifact
(i.e. it only removes portions dependent upon the determined
median value). The “smoothing” of the median filter cited in
Chiao is considered to be a form of image correction that
actually would correct a noise artifact or flash artifact in the
same manner as is disclosed in Applicant’s specification, as
both are median filters. Therefore, this median filter outputs
images that are further corrected and correspond to the claimed
generation of corrected color flow images. Further, the median
filter is a temporal median filter because the images are
smoothed “in time” (col 7, line 44; col 8, line 19).
Id. at 5.
In reply, the Appellant argues the Examiner misstates the Appellant’s
argument and incorrectly characterizes Chiao. Reply Br. 2. According to
Appellant, “[Chiao’s] flash suppression does not scale the [] value of a pixel
i,j as a median value of pixel values at the same pixel location i,j across the
frames.” Id. Rather, Appellant argues, Chiao computes the absolute
difference of brightness between the present and subsequent frames based on
“neighborhoods” of pixels. Id. Appellant argues that for flash suppression:
Chiao discloses scaling a value of a pixel i,j by a factor that is a
function of a mean brightness of an entire image (a) and either
a neishborhood of pixels (b) in the present frame or
8
Appeal 2016-008404
Application 13/904,200
neighborhoods of pixels (b’) in the previous, present and
subsequent frames. The subject independent claims require
generating corrected color flow images by computing a value at
a pixel location i,j of the corrected color flow images as a
median value of values of the pixel location id across the
plurality of color flow images.
Id. at 3. Appellant argues Chiao’s method does not disclose or suggest the
claimed computation of the value as a median value of pixel values at the
pixel location i,j across the images at least because “the scaling of Chiao
takes into account more than the values at pixel location i,j; that is, the
scaling is based on pixel values of the ‘entire image’ and one or more
‘neighborhood(s)’of pixels.” Id.
“An examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness.” In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1066 (Fed. Cir.
2011). A proper § 103 analysis requires “a searching comparison of the
claimed invention—including all its limitations—with the teachings of the
prior art.” In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
On this record, especially without any response to Appellant’s rebuttal
to the Examiner’s second interpretation of Chiao, we are unpersuaded that
Appellant’s reading of Chiao is incorrect. More specifically, the Examiner
has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Appellant’s
characterization of Chiao as teaching scaling based on pixel values of the
“entire image” and one or more “neighborhood(s)” of pixels, followed by
post-processing of the images, is flawed. As argued by Appellant, the steps
disclosed by Chiao would not satisfy the claim limitations of “receiving a
plurality of color flow images of the color flow images, including color flow
images with the at least one of the color noise artifact or the color flash
artifact,” or “generating the corrected color flow images ... by computing a
9
Appeal 2016-008404
Application 13/904,200
value at a pixel location of the corrected color flow images as a median
value of values of the pixel location across the plurality of color flow
images.”
We are not persuaded by the Examiner’s assertion (Ans. 5) that the
median filter’s receiving of flash suppressed images and performing an
“additional correction of the flash” including residual artifacts meets the
claim limitation at issue because the claim recites that the color correction is
generated by computing a value as a median value of values of the pixel
location across the plurality of color flow images, not through post­
processing by a median filter. Additionally, the Examiner has not
satisfactorily explained how Chiao accomplishes “replacing a value of a
pixel at location i,j of image N with a median value of the values of pixels at
the location i,j in image N and other images of the same phase point but
different motion cycles” by using a pixel rather than by “neighborhoods of
pixels” as argued by Appellant. App. Br. 5.
Accordingly, because the Examiner fails to meet the burden to explain
how the proposed combination suggests these limitations, we reverse the
rejection of claims 1,3, 11, 15, 17—19, 21, and 23—26 as obvious over Chiao
and Rafter.
The Examiner rejected claims 4—9 and 13 as obvious over Chiao,
Rafter, and Dubberstein. This rejection, however, is also based on the
Examiner’s finding that Chiao and Rafter render independent claims 1 and
11 obvious. See Final Act. 6. The obviousness rejection, therefore, is
reversed for the same reasons as set forth above.
10
Appeal 2016-008404
Application 13/904,200
SUMMARY
We reverse both rejections on appeal.
REVERSED
11