14074969 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2017)

Ex Parte Sornes

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 21, 2017

14074969 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 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. 14/074,969 11/08/2013 Anders R. Sornes GE267703 (27222US01) 1725 23446 7590 09/25/2017 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD 500 WEST MADISON STREET SUITE 3400 CHICAGO, IL 60661 EXAMINER BILLAH, MASUM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/25/2017 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): mhmpto @ mcandrews-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDERS R. SORNES Appeal 2017-006621 Application 14/074,9691 Technology Center 2400 Before MARC S. HOFF, THU A. DANG, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s May 18, 2016 Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is General Electric Company. October 12, 2016 Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) 2. Appeal 2017-006621 Application 14/074,969 THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention relates to ultrasound imaging, including “enhanced structural visualization by temporal compounding of speckle tracked 3D ultrasound data.” See November 8, 2013 Specification (“Spec.”) 13. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A method, comprising: acquiring ultrasound image data corresponding to a plurality of subsequent volume frames of an object; applying motion compensation to said acquired ultrasound image data to track, or align between frames, any particular region of said object within said plurality of volume frames of said object; compounding said motion compensated ultrasound image data that corresponds to said tracked particular region of said object within said plurality of volume frames of said object; and generating a stationary single three dimensional (3D) volume of a plurality of said tracked particular regions of said object. REJECTION ON APPEAL The Examiner rejected claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Langeland et al. (US 2010/0249592 Al; published Sept. 30, 2010) (hereinafter “Langeland”). ISSUE The dispositive issues for this appeal is whether Langeland discloses “compounding said motion compensated ultrasound image data that corresponds to said tracked particular region of said object within said plurality of volume frames of said object,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 10 and 19. 2 Appeal 2017-006621 Application 14/074,969 ANALYSIS We find Appellant’s arguments discussed herein persuasive. Compounding said motion compensated ultrasound image data Appellant argues that Langeland fails to disclose the disputed limitation. App. Br. 11—13; Reply Br. 4—5. Appellant’s Specification provides “‘compounding’ generally refers to non-coherently combining multiple data sets to create a new single data set. The plurality of data sets may each be obtained from imaging the object from different angles, using different imaging properties, such as, for example, aperture and/or frequency, and/or imaging nearby objects.” Spec. 1 6. Appellant argues that Langeland fails to disclose compounding motion compensated ultrasound image data corresponding to a tracked region, and instead discloses compounding different types of ultrasound image data and subsequently compensating for motion on the compounded single image. App. Br. 12—13 (citing Langeland 134, Abstract, Figs. 3—4); Reply Br. 4—6 (citing Langeland 29-32, 34, 36). More specifically, Appellant argues that Langeland discloses compounding different types of ultrasound information (e.g., colorflow data, power Doppler data, B-mode data, spectral Doppler data, M-mode data, ARFI data, echocardiographic strain data, echocardiographic strain rage data, and tissue Doppler data) to form a single multi-mode image. Reply Br. 4 (citing Langeland 29-32, 34). Langeland discloses compensating for motion in this single image. Id. (citing Langeland 36—39). The Examiner finds that Langeland discloses the disputed limitation. See Ans. 3^4. More specifically, the Examiner finds that Langeland discloses combining video frames from different types of ultrasound image 3 Appeal 2017-006621 Application 14/074,969 information (e.g., “one type of data to a grayscale map and mapping the other type of data to a color map for video display”), which indicates compounding motion data sets. Ans. 3^4 (citing 134, 36). The Examiner finds that Langeland also discloses a motion compensation module that generates motion tracking information to eliminate motion of a displayed object. Id. We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” See VerdegaalBros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We agree with Appellant that the cited portions of Fangeland do not disclose compounding motion compensated ultrasound image data corresponding to a tracked region. Fangeland Tflf 34, 36—39. Rather, Fangeland discloses compounding image data from different sources into a single image, and then compensating for motion for that image. Id. Fangeland thus discloses performing the operations of motion compensation and compounding in the reverse order (and thus, compounding uncompensated data) to that required by the claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. 4 Appeal 2017-006621 Application 14/074,969 CONCLUSION Based on our above findings and reasoning, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 19, as well as claims 2—9, 11—18, and 20, which each depend directly or indirectly from one of these independent claims. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20. REVERSED 5