Ex Parte Suehling et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2018

12831392 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/831,392 07/07/2010
28524 7590 03/21/2018
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Suehling
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.
2009Pl 1680US01 2350
EXAMINER
REYES, REGINALD R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2018 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL SUEHLING and GRZEGORZ SOZA
Appeal 2016-005164
Application 12/831,3 92
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-33 which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as Siemens
Aktiengesellschaft (App. Br. 1 ).
Appeal2016-005164
Application 12/831,392
THE INVENTION
The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to lesion detection in
3D medical images (Spec., para. 2). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for detecting lesions in a 3 D medical image,
compnsmg:
defining a plurality of search regions in the 3D medical image
based on anatomic landmarks, organs, and bone structures in the 3D
medical image; and
detecting lesions in each of the plurality of search regions using
a respective trained region-specific lesion detector for each of the
plurality of search regions.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
2. Claims 1-25 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Unal (US 2008/0260221 Al, pub. Oct. 23, 2008) and
Yoshida (US 2005/0152588 Al, pub. July 14, 2005).
3. Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Unal, Yoshida, and Schoenberg (US 2009/0089086 Al,
pub. Apr. 2, 2009).
4. Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Unal, Yoshida, and Chhibber (US 2010/0245823 Al, pub.
Sept. 30, 2010).
2
Appeal2016-005164
Application 12/831,392
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2.
ANALYSIS
Re} ection under 3 5 US. C. § 101
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the claim is not directed to an abstract idea (Reply Br. 2--4). The Appellants
also argue that the claims add "significantly more" to the alleged abstract
idea (Reply Br. 4--7).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is
proper (Ans. 2).
We agree with the Examiner. Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is
patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture,
or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however,
has long interpreted § 101 to include an implicit exception: "laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice
Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
In judging whether claim 1 falls within the excluded category of
abstract ideas, we are guided in our analysis by the Supreme Court's two-
step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296-97
(2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine whether the
2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2016-005164
Application 12/831,392
claim is "directed to" a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Id. If so, we then
consider the elements of the claim both individually and as "an ordered
combination" to determine whether the additional elements "transform the
nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. Id.
This is a search for an "inventive concept" an element or combination of
elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to "significantly more"
than the abstract idea itself. Id. The Court also stated that "the mere
recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract
idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id at 2358.
Here, we determine that the claim is directed to the concept of
defining a search area for a medical detection procedure and performing the
detection. This is a method of organizing human activities in medical
analysis and is an abstract idea beyond the scope of§ 101. See In re Meyer,
688 F.2d 789, 795-96 (CCPA 1982), which held that "a mental process that
a neurologist should follow" when testing a patient for nervous system
malfunctions was not patentable. See also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835 (Fed.
Cir. 1989), which held that diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing
clinical tests and thinking about the results was not patentable. Further, the
Specification at paragraph 32 describes that the localization (detection) is
performed by mathematical techniques. A system, like the claimed system,
"that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information
to generate additional information is not patent eligible." See Digitech
Image Techs, LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed.
Cir. 2014).
We next consider whether additional elements of the claim, both
individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the
4
Appeal2016-005164
Application 12/831,392
claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea, e.g., whether the
claim does more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the
abstract idea using generic computer components. We conclude that it does
not.
Considering each of the claim elements in tum, the function
performed by the computer based system at each step of the process is
purely conventional.
We note the point about pre-emption (Reply Br. 7). While pre-
emption "'might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to
promote it,' thereby thwarting the primary object of the patent laws" (Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012)), "the absence of complete preemption
does not demonstrate patent eligibility" (Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v.
Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). See also OIP
Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir.)
("[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited
to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less
abstract.").
For these above reasons, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The
same arguments have been presented for claims 2-22 and the rejection of
these claims is sustained as well.
With regards to claims 23 and 28, the Appellants argue that the claim
is similarly not directed to an abstract idea and that the claims each recite
significantly more than an abstract idea (Reply Br. 7-16).
We have considered the arguments for claims 23 and 28, but
determine that the rejections of record made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
5
Appeal2016-005164
Application 12/831,392
proper. While claims 23 and 28 are slightly different in scope than claim 1,
they are also both similarly directed to an abstract idea in determining
medical detection procedures and performing the detection in medical
analysis and using mathematical techniques. Similar to claim 1 addressed
above, both claims 23 and 28 are directed to the abstract idea of a method of
organizing human activities in medical analysis and using mathematical
techniques. Also, similar to claim 1 addressed above, the limitations of
claims 23 and 28 fail to transform the abstract nature of each respective
claim. For these reasons, the rejection of claims 23 and 28 and their
dependent claims, which were not separately argued, is sustained.
Rejections under 35 US.C. § 103(a)
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 17, and 18
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the prior art does not disclose the claimed limitations for "defining a
plurality of search regions in the 3D medical image based on anatomic
landmarks, organs, and bone structures in the 3D medical image" and
"detecting lesions in each of the plurality of search regions using a
respective trained region-specific lesion detector for each of the plurality of
search regions" (App. Br. 6-13; Reply Br. 16-18). The Appellants present
the same arguments for claims 2, 11, 12, 17, and 18 (App. Br. 13).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the argued claim
limitations are disclosed by Unal at paras. 7, 11, Figure 2(b ); and Yoshida at
paras. 104 and 105 (Ans. 4---6).
We agree with the Examiner and adopt those findings. Unal in
Figure 2(a) and para. 7 discloses a MRI image with lesions detected. Unal at
6
Appeal2016-005164
Application 12/831,392
para. 12 states it can be used for lesion detection in 3 D images as well.
Yoshida at para. 105 discloses removing the lungs, bones, and skin from the
threshold value in detection. Thus, the prior art has disclosed the argued
claim limitations. For these reasons, this rejection is sustained.
Claims 3, 13, and 19
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 3 is improper because
the prior art does not disclose the claimed limitations for "detecting a
plurality of body parts in the 3D medical image" and "detecting the
anatomic landmarks, organs, and bone structures in the 3D medical image
based on the detected body parts in the 3D medical image" (App. Br. 13, 14;
Reply Br. 18, 19). The Appellants make the same arguments for claims 13
and 19 (App. Br. 14).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the argued claim
limitations are disclosed by Yoshida at para. 105 (Ans. 6).
We agree with the Examiner and adopt those findings. Yoshida at
para. 105 discloses removing the lungs, bones, and skin from the threshold
value in detection, which means those items must have been originally
detected. Thus, the prior art has disclosed the argued claim limitations. For
these reasons, the rejection of these claims is sustained.
Claims 4, 5, 7
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 4 is improper because
the prior art does not disclose the claim limitation for "detecting
predetermined slices of the 3 D medical image corresponding to the body
parts" (App. Br. 15, 16; Reply Br. 19, 20). For claim 5, the Appellants argue
7
Appeal2016-005164
Application 12/831,392
the prior art does not disclose "detecting the anatomic landmarks, organs,
and bone structures using a separate trained detector for each of the
anatomic landmarks, organs, and bone structures, wherein each trained
detector is constrained based on at least one of the predetermined slices"
(App. Br. 16, 17; Reply Br. 20, 21). For claim 7, the Appellants argue that
the prior art does not disclose the claim limitation for "excluding regions
from said at least one search region outside of organs and bone structures
based on the organs and the bone structures in the 3D medical image" (App.
Br. 19; Reply Br. 22-24).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the argued claim
limitations are disclosed by Unal at para. 68 (claim 7), para. 96 and
Figures 3(b, c), and Yoshida at para. 105 (Ans. 6-8).
We agree with the Examiner and adopt those findings. Unal at
Figure 3 shows slices of 3D image, and this is described in para. 96. Unal at
para. 68 discloses a marching scheme to achieve an initial estimate of the
lesion boundaries. Yoshida at para. 105 discloses removing the lungs,
bones, and skin from the threshold value in detection, which means those
items must have been originally detected. Thus, the prior art has disclosed
the argued claim limitations. For these above reasons, these rejections are
sustained.
Claims 6, 14, and 20
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 6 is improper because
the prior art does not disclose the claim limitations for
defining at least one organ search region in the 3D medical
image by segmenting at least one organ in the 3D medical image;
8
Appeal2016-005164
Application 12/831,392
defining at least one bone structure search region in the 3D
medical image by segmenting at least one bone structure in the 3D
medical image; and
defining at least one search region outside of organs and bone
structures based on a location of at least one anatomic landmark
(App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 21-22). The same arguments are made for
claims 14 and 20 (App. Br. 19).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the argued claim
limitations are disclosed by Unal Figures 3(b, c ), para. 96 and Yoshida at
para. 105 (Ans. 7, 8).
We agree with the Examiner. Unal at Figure 3 discloses an imaging
procedure and Yoshida at para. 105 discloses removing the lungs, bones, and
skin from the threshold value in detection, which means those items must
have been originally detected. Thus, the prior art has disclosed the argued
claim limitations. For these reasons, these rejections are sustained.
Claims 8, 15, and 21
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 8 is improper because
the prior art does not disclose the claim limitation for "detecting lesions by
each trained region-specific lesion detector based on features extracted from
the respective one of the plurality of search regions" (App. Br. 21-22; Reply
Br. 24--25). The same argument is made for claims 15 and 21 (App. Br. 22).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the argued claim
limitation is disclosed by Unal at paras. 7, 11, 59, and Figure 2(b) (Ans. 8-
9).
We agree with the Examiner and adopt those findings. Unal at the
cited portions discloses the claimed detection of lesions. Thus, the prior art
9
Appeal2016-005164
Application 12/831,392
has disclosed the argued claim limitation. For these reasons, the rejection of
these claims is sustained.
Claims 9, 16, and 22
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 9 is improper because
the prior art does not disclose the claim limitation for "detecting lesions by
each trained region-specific lesion detector based on features extracted from
the respective one of the plurality of search regions using clustered marginal
space learning" (App. Br. 22-24; Reply Br. 26-27). The same argument is
presented for claims 16 and 22 (App. Br. 24).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the argued claim
limitation is disclosed by Unal at paras. 7, 11, 59, and Figure 2(b) (Ans. 9,
10).
We agree with the Appellants. While Unal at para. 7 does disclose the
use of an MRI machine, it is not specifically disclosed that it uses "clustered
marginal space learning" as recited in the claim. For these reasons, the
rejection of these claims is not sustained.
Claim 10
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 10 is improper
because the prior art does not disclose the claim limitation for "wherein each
trained region-specific lesion detector is trained based on training data using
a Probabilistic Boosting Tree (PBT)" (App. Br. 24; Reply Br. 27-28).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the argued claim
limitation is disclosed by Unal at para. 12 (Final Act. 12). The Examiner
10
Appeal2016-005164
Application 12/831,392
also asserts that the "wherein" clause is not a limitation to the claim
(Ans. 10).
We agree with the Appellants. Here, the cited limitation is a
limitation to the claim. Unal at para. 12 fails to disclose the argued claim
limitation and this rejection is therefore not sustained.
Claims 23-27
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 23 is improper
because the prior art does not disclose the claim limitations for "receiving a
3D medical image and corresponding clinical information," "detecting a
trigger in the clinical information," and "automatically detecting lesions in
the 3D medical image in response to detecting the trigger in the clinical
information" (App. Br. 25-27, 28-30).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the argued claim
limitations are disclosed by Unal at para. 7, and Figures 2(b) and 3 ( a---c)
(Ans. 10, 11).
We agree with the Appellants. Here, the rejection of record cites Unal
at para. 7, and Figures 2(b ), and 3 ( a---c ), but these portions fail to disclose
"detecting a trigger in the clinical information," and "automatically detecting
lesions in the 3D medical image in response to detecting the trigger in the
clinical information" as recited. Accordingly, the rejection is of claim 23
and its dependent claims 24--27 is not sustained.
Claims 28 and 31-33
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 28 is improper
because the prior art does not disclose the claim limitations for
11
Appeal2016-005164
Application 12/831,392
"automatically detecting lesions in a 3D medical image," "automatically
displaying the detected lesions in an interactive display," and "automatically
labeling displayed lesions" (App. Br. 27-29; Reply Br. 31-32). The same
arguments are made for claims 31-33 (App. Br. 29).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the argued claim
limitations are disclosed by Unal at para. 7 and Figure 2(b) (Ans. 12).
We agree with the Examiner. Unal at the cited portions discloses
displaying lesions in a medical image. Unal at para. 7 discloses using a
"multi-label" approach. Regardless, the use of labeling of the lesions is
considered an obvious, predictable, modification to identify the lesions as
they are displayed. For these reasons, this rejection of record is sustained.
Claim 29
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 29 is improper
because the prior art does not disclose the claim limitation for "displaying
the detected lesions as a probability map based on probabilities output by
detectors used to detect the lesion in the 3D medical image." (App. Br. 29-
30; Reply Br. 32-33).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the argued claim
limitation is disclosed by Unal at para. 7 and Figure 2(b) (Ans. 12-13).
We agree with the Appellants. Unal at the cited portions does not
disclose the argued claim limitation and this rejection is not sustained.
Claim 30
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 30 is improper
because the prior art does not disclose the claim limitation for "displaying a
12
Appeal2016-005164
Application 12/831,392
fused image of the probability map and the 3D medical image" (App.
Br. 30-31; Reply Br. 33-34).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the argued claim
limitation is disclosed by Unal at paras. 7, 99, and Figure 2(b) (Ans. 13).
We agree with the Appellants. Unal at the cited portions does not
disclose the argued claim limitation and this rejection is not sustained.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-8, 11-15, 17-21, 28, and 31-33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 9, 10, 16, 22-27, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-33 is sustained.
AFFIRMED
13