KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 1, 2021

2021001442 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2021)

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.
14/648,382 05/29/2015 Erik Martinus Hubertus Petrus Van Dijk 2012P01464WOUS 5041
24737 7590 11/01/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
1600 Summer Street
5th Floor
Stamford, CT 06905
EXAMINER
PARK, PATRICIA JOO YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2021 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIK MARTINUS HUBERTUS PETRUS VAN DIJK
Appeal 2021-001442
Application 14/648,382
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–10, and 16. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Koninklijke
Philips N.V. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-001442
Application 14/648,382

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to an interventional system. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An interventional system comprising:
a controller with a memory that stores instructions;
a processor that executes the instructions, wherein, when
executed by the processor, the instructions cause the controller
to execute a process comprising:
moving an introduction element within an object by a
moving unit;
generating tracking images of the introduction element
within the object by a
tracking image generating unit, wherein a radiation beam
for traversing the object is emitted by a radiation source and a
collimator, which collimates the radiation beam, of the tracking
image generating unit, and the collimated radiation beam is
detected after having traversed the object by a radiation detector
of the tracking image generating unit;
providing movement parameters, which define a
movement of the introduction element within the object, to the
tracking image generating unit; and
controlling the collimator so the radiation beam is
collimated depending on the movement parameters such that the
collimated radiation beam traverses a region of the object that
includes the introduction element.
Appeal 2021-001442
Application 14/648,382

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Lewin US 2004/0044279 A1 Mar. 4, 2004
Lloyd US 2008/0119725 A1 May 22, 2008
Heuscher US 2010/0274120 A1 Oct. 28, 2010
Wenderow US 2012/0179167 A1 Jul. 12, 2012
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8–10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Heuscher and Wenderow.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Heuscher, Wenderow, and Lewin.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Heuscher, Wenderow, and Lloyd.
OPINION
Appellant presents arguments directed to claim 1, and relies on those
arguments for the patentability of claims 3–10 and 16.3 Appeal Br. 8–15.

2 The Examiner applies 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) to several claim limitations.
Final Act. 7–12. Although Appellant disagrees with the determination that
those limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (Appeal Br. 4–8), that
disagreement does not impact the arguments made relative to the prior art
rejections (id. at 8–15). Because those claim interpretations do not affect
our decision, and because there is not an actual rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, we do not address the application of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) in this
decision.
3 For the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 8–10, and 16 Appellant argues the
claims as a group and we select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2021-001442
Application 14/648,382

4
Appellant argues that “Heuscher teaches controlling movement (e.g.,
axial and rotational) of the X-ray source 112 and detector 124 in order to
keep a narrow cone beam in the region where an instrument tip 144 is
included during actual tracking of the instrument tip 144.” Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant contends that “while Heuscher may teach tracking the collimator
component, the document does not teach controlling the collimator so the
radiation beam is collimated[ ] depending on the movement parameters such
that the collimated radiation beam traverses a region of the object that
includes the introduction element.” Id.; see also Reply Br. 4. Appellant
contends that “[e]ven assuming arguendo but certainly not conceding that a
detected position of a medical instrument suffices for a movement
parameter, there is no disclosure in Heuscher of controlling a collimator to
collimate a radiation beam based on the detected position.” Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive. Claim 1 is broad, and
does not require any particular manner in which the “movement parameters”
are determined. We agree with the Examiner that, in its current form, the
recited “movement parameters” can be the detected position of the medical
device. Although the Specification provides an example where the
movement parameters are associated with the robotic unit used to displace
the catheter (Spec. 7:31–8:2), this level of specificity is found nowhere in
the claim.
As acknowledged by Appellant (Appeal Br. 10), Heuscher teaches
“control[ling] rotational and axial movement of the X-ray source 112 and the
X-ray detector 124.” Heuscher ¶ 27. As the Examiner notes (Final Act. 13–
14; Ans. 6), Heuscher teaches that “[t]he CT scanner and CT controller are
additionally coupled to a collimator controller 140 that controls movement,
Appeal 2021-001442
Application 14/648,382

5
and opening and closing, of a collimator 142 positioned between the X-ray
source and the examination region 108.” Heuscher ¶ 27. Indeed, Heusher
expressly states that its “medical instrument . . . is maintained in a field of
view of the cone beam and tracked by an instrument tracking component
146.” Id.
Appellant’s observation regarding instances where the Heucher’s
medical instrument is not detected is unavailing. See Appeal Br. 10; Ans. 3.
As explained in Heuscher, when “the tracking component does not register
the instrument tip 144, then the collimator component can widen the
collimator aperture to increase the scan area until the instrument tip is
located at which time the cone beam can be narrowed to reduce radiation
do[se] to the patient.” Heuscher ¶ 27. This is an example of controlling the
collimator as recited in the claim based on the movement parameters (i.e.,
the detected position).
The Examiner relies on Wenderow for, generally, “the details of
movement parameters.” Final Act. 14. Appellant contends that Wenderow
does not cure the deficiencies of Heuscher (Appeal Br. 11), but we
determine there are no such deficiencies. Claim 1 does not include any
detail regarding the “movement parameters.” Appellant does not challenge
the Examiner’s finding that Heuscher teaches the limitations involving the
“movement parameters” recited in claim 1. See id. at 13–14 (citing
Heuscher ¶¶ 27, 30, 31). Likewise, Appellant does not challenge the
Examiner explanation that “the ‘detected position of the medical device’
satisfies claim limitation of movement as sequence/orientation of the
instrument.” Ans. 6.
Appeal 2021-001442
Application 14/648,382

6
Appellant fails to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s decision
to reject claims 1, 3–10, and 16.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5, 8–
10, 16
103(a) Heuscher,
Wenderow
1, 3, 5, 8–
10, 16

4 103(a) Heuscher,
Wenderow, Lewin
4
6, 7 103(a) Heuscher,
Wenderow, Lloyd
6, 7
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–10, 16

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED