Ex Parte Shi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 5, 2019

13995522 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/995,522 08/14/2013 Yan Shi
24737 7590 02/07/2019
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.
2010P01230WOUS 8160
EXAMINER
PEHLKE, CAROLYN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/07/2019 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 YAN SHI, HUA XIE, ROY PETERSON,
JEAN-LUC ROBERT, and VIJAY SHAMDASANI
Appeal2018-002061
Application 13/995,522
Technology Center 3700
Before JEREMY M. PLENZLER, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Decision rejecting claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10-16, 18-22, and 25-27.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2018-002061
Application 13/995,522
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 21, and 22 are independent. Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10-16, 18-
20, and 25-27 depend from claim 1, 21, or 22. Claim 1 is reproduced
below:
1. A device comprising:
an ultrasound transducer configured to fire pushing
beams into a medium, the medium comprising a material,
wherein each pushing beam of the pushing beams comprises a
pushing beam focus and is configured to produce a respective
shear wave along a propagation path through the medium, the
ultrasound transducer further being configured to issue tracking
beams;
a multiline beamformer configured to form a plurality of
spatially overlapping receive lines from respective echoes from
the tracking beams, each respective tracking beam of the
tracking beams comprising one transmit beam;
a beamforming circuitry configured to measure shear-
wave induced displacements in the medium at different spatial
locations along the propagation path of the respective shear
wave in response to the plurality of spatially overlapping
receive lines; and
a processor operatively connected with all the tracking
beams,
wherein the processor is configured to use the shear-
wave-induced displacements, measured at the different spatial
locations along the propagation path by the beamforming
circuitry, to determine a time value of a center of mass of a
waveform of the respective shear wave for each of the different
spatial locations by computing a time-of-arrival weighted
average of a displacement curve of the respective shear wave
based on the plurality of spatially overlapping receive lines,
wherein the time-of-arrival weighted average of the
displacement curve is determined using time values of the
displacement curve weighted by the respective shear-wave
induced displacements of the displacement curve associated
2
Appeal2018-002061
Application 13/995,522
with the time values and measured by the beamforming
circuitry at different sampling times associated with sampling
that detects the shearwave induced displacements in the
medium at each of the different spatial locations, and
wherein the time value of the center of mass of the
waveform of the respective shear wave for each of the different
spatial locations, determined by computing the time-of-arrival
weighted average of the displacement curve for each of the
different spatial locations, is representative of an arrival time of
the respective shear wave at a respective location of the
different spatial locations, each respective location of the
different spatial locations having a respective time-of-arrival
weighted average.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10-16, 18-22, and 25-27 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement
requirement.
2. Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10-16, 18-22, and 25-27 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Palmeri (US 2008/0249408 Al,
published Oct. 9, 2008) and Burcher (US 2009/0069693 Al, published Mar.
12, 2009).
OPINION
Enablement
The claims each require "measur[ing] shear-wave induced
displacements" and "determin[ing] a time value of a center of mass of a
waveform of the respective shear wave ... by computing a time-of-arrival
weighted average of a displacement curve of the respective shear wave."
The Examiner explains that the claims lack enablement
because the specification, while being enabling for a "weighted
average" which is equal to the measured arrival time multiplied
3
Appeal2018-002061
Application 13/995,522
by one, or weighting which is equal to one, does not reasonably
provide enablement for a "weighted average" having any value
other than the arrival time multiplied by one or weighting
having any value other than one.
Final Act. 2. The Examiner explains that "[i]n Applicant[s'] disclosure
(figure 2; pg. 7, line 17 through pg. 8, line 16), it appears that the calculation
of the time-of-arrival weighted average amounts to nothing more than a
determination of the time to peak displacement multiplied by one." Id.
Figure 2 is reproduced below.
226
250
\,
/I.a
V "' --
! '\mm
246 254
FIG. 2
Figure 2 includes "location-based graphs of displacement over time, and
shows formulas used in shear-wave velocity determination." Spec. 5. The
4
Appeal2018-002061
Application 13/995,522
basis for the enablement rejection is the manner in which the Examiner reads
the equation shown above. More specifically, the Examiner takes the
position that, as written, the equation does not include variable "t" in the
summation function in the numerator. See Final Act. 3 ( explaining that the
fraction involving the summation functions "reduces to 1, and, in fact, can
only be equal to 1 ").
Appellants respond using curve 210 in Figure 2 as an example,
explaining that "all of the time values along curve 210 are weighted
according to the measured displacement at each corresponding time value."
Appeal Br. 10-11. Appellants explain that "[t]hese individual weighted
values are added to form a sum" and "[t]he sum of these weighted values is
then divided by a sum of the displacements of the displacement curve to
obtain the time-of-arrival weighted average of the displacement curve." Id.
at 11 ( citing Spec. 7-8). Appellants contend that
based on the Specification, one having skill in the art would
understand to weight each time value of the displacement curve
by the respective displacement and sum the weighted values
and divide the weighted sum by a sum of the displacements of
the displacement curve to compute the time-of-arrival weighted
average in order to acquire the time value of the center of mass
of the wave form of the respective shear wave.
Id. The Examiner addresses Appellants' argument by reiterating the
rejection set forth in the Final Action. See Ans. 2-5. Appellants have the
better position.
We are persuaded that one skilled in the art would understand the
equation illustrated in Figure 2, based on the corresponding explanation in
the Specification noted by Appellants, as having the time component "t"
subject to the summation function in the numerator. The Specification
5
Appeal2018-002061
Application 13/995,522
explains, for example, that "[t]he sum 238 is divided by a sum 242 of the
displacements 226 used in the weighting, thereby forming a weighted
average 244 represented by the symbol tcoM." Spec. 8. The value "tcoM"
corresponds to the "center of mass" determination recited in the claims. The
position taken by the Examiner simply does not makes sense, because, as the
Examiner acknowledges, there is no weighting when the equation is read in
that manner due to the summation ratio always reducing to 1 (i.e., there is no
weighting). Thus, the Examiner's position reduces the equation to: tcoM = t.
In order to understand the equation in Figure 2, the time component "t" must
be part of the summation, if for no other reason, to know which value to
assign to "t." That is, the values of "t" are those when the displacement
( disp) is greater than the peak displacement (Peak) multiplied by the
instantaneous-displacement threshold factor (H).
We are persuaded that one skilled in the art would understand the
equation in Figure 2 as being a first summation divided by a second
summation, both summations occurring over times (t) where the
displacement ( disp) is greater than the peak displacement (Peak) multiplied
by the instantaneous-displacement threshold factor (H). We understand the
first summation as the summation of displacement ( disp) at a given time ( t)
multiplied by that time (t). We understand the second summation as the
summation of displacement ( disp ). Based on that understanding of the
equation in Figure 2, we disagree with the Examiner's determination that the
claims are not enabled.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision to reject
claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10-16, 18-22, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
6
Appeal2018-002061
Application 13/995,522
Obviousness
In the obviousness rejection, the Examiner acknowledges that both
Palmeri and Burcher are silent with respect to the center of mass
determination recited in each claim. Final Act. 6. Nevertheless, the
Examiner reasons that
because Applicant[s'] disclosure is only enabled for multiplying
the time value of the center of mass of the waveform of the
respective shear wave by one, which produces the same result
as simply measuring the time value of the center of mass of the
waveform (the peak arrival time), ... [i]t would have been
prima facie obvious at the time of invention for skilled artisan
to apply arbitrary thresholds ( which cancel in the final equation
and therefore produce no change in the result of Palmeri) and
multiply the result of Palmeri by one, as set forth in the instant
claims, which does not change the result of Palmeri.
Id. at 6-7. That is, the Examiner's rejection requires that tcoM = t.
As explained above in our discussion of the enablement rejection, the
Examiner's understanding of the "center of mass" determination is incorrect.
The Examiner provides no findings or rationale directed to the
"determin[ ing] a time value of a center of mass of a waveform of the
respective shear wave ... by computing a time-of-arrival weighted average
of a displacement curve of the respective shear wave" required by the
claims.
For at least this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10-16, 18-22, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Appeal2018-002061
Application 13/995,522
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10-
16, 18-22, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to
comply with the enablement requirement.
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10-
16, 18-22, and 25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
8