Alexander Vija et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 30, 20202020001333 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 13/451,579 04/20/2012 Alexander Hans Vija 2011P20932US 4622 28524 7590 10/30/2020 SIEMENS CORPORATION IP Dept - Mail Code INT-244 3850 Quadrangle Blvd Orlando, FL 32817 EXAMINER LUONG, PETER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3793 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/30/2020 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 ALEXANDER HANS VIJA, ANSGAR GRAW, and DENNIS STEIBEL, JR. ____________ Appeal 2020-001333 Application 13/451,579 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, BRETT C. MARTIN, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE. Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision in the Final Office Action (dated Jan. 24, 2019, hereinafter “Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1–7, 9, 10, and 12–22.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest in Appellant’s Appeal Brief (filed June 18, 2019, hereinafter “Appeal Br.”). Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 8 and 11 are canceled. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-001333 Application 13/451,579 2 SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to “methods, systems, and computer- readable media for controlling a scanner of a medical imaging system.” Spec. 2, para. 7. Claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A system comprising: a scanner configured to generate scan data of a patient volume or area; a processor configured to implement control operations, the control operations being directed to acquisition of the scan data; a monitoring system comprising a range imaging camera positioned for a field of view such that the monitoring system is configured to capture spatial data indicative of relative movement between the scanner and an object spaced from the scanner; and a memory in which scanner model data for the scanner and human model data for a human skeletal model are stored, the scanner model data being reflective of geometry of the scanner; wherein the processor is configured to implement an analysis of the spatial data in conjunction with the scanner model data and the human model data to identify the object as a human body part foreign to the scanner based on the geometry of the scanner via the scanner model data; wherein the processor is configured to implement an adjustment in the control operations based on the analysis. Appeal 2020-001333 Application 13/451,579 3 REJECTIONS I. The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 10, 12–14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alexandrescu3 and Bouvier.4 II. The Examiner rejects claims 6, 15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alexandrescu, Bouvier, and Bonfiglio.5 III. The Examiner rejects claims 7, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alexandrescu, Bouvier, and Mostafavi.6 IV. The Examiner rejects claims 9, 18, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alexandrescu, Bouvier, and Klingenbeck-Regn.7 ANALYSIS Rejection I Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, “a monitoring system comprising a range imaging camera . . . . configured to capture spatial data.” See Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). In a similar manner, independent claim 10 recites “capturing, with a range imaging camera, spatial data” and 3 Alexandrescu, US 6,272,368 B1, issued Aug. 7, 2001. 4 Bouvier et al., US 2008/0031413 A1, published Feb. 7, 2008. 5 Bonfiglio et al., US 2008/0253519 A1, published Oct. 16, 2008. 6 Mostafavi, US 6,937,696 B1, issued Aug. 30, 2005. 7Klingenbeck-Regn, US 2009/0015669 A1, published Jan. 15, 2009. Appeal 2020-001333 Application 13/451,579 4 independent claim 17 recites “receive spatial data from a range imaging camera.” Id. at 11, 12. The Examiner finds that Alexandrescu discloses capturing spatial data using range imaging camera 13. See Final Act. 2, 3 (citing Alexandrescu, col. 4, ll. 31–33, Fig. 1). Appellant argues that “the requisite spatial data [in Alexandrescu] is not ‘captured with a range imaging camera.’” Appeal Br. 6. According to Appellant, “the distance in Alexandrescu is calculated from the 3D representation rather than received from a range imaging camera.” Id. Alexandrescu discloses using a known triangular 3D technique to calculate 3D data with respect to the positions of objects in a room. Alexandrescu, col. 3, ll. 22–23. In particular, Alexandrescu describes performing two-dimensional illumination of the room with light fan 15 emitted by light transmitter 12 and two dimensional scanning of the room using video/CCD camera 13 to generate 3D spatial data by knowing the distance 16 between light transmitter 12 and video/CCD camera 13 and illumination angle 17. Id., col. 3, ll. 24–33, Fig. 2. Although we appreciate that Alexandrescu discloses camera 13, the Examiner has not pointed to any portion of Alexandrescu that discloses that video/CCD camera 13 constitutes a “range imaging” camera. The Examiner fails to adequately explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider video/CCD camera 13 of Alexandrescu to be a “range imaging” camera, as called for by each of independent claims 1, 10, and 17. Moreover, the Examiner’s construction of the limitation “range imaging camera” as covering camera 13 of Alexandrescu, i.e., a video/CCD camera, in effect renders meaningless, or superfluous, the phrase “range imaging.” Appeal 2020-001333 Application 13/451,579 5 See Bicon Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Claims are construed with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.). We are further persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because, in reviewing the record, we note that the Examiner’s Answer offers no rebuttal to Appellant’s argument, and, thus, we essentially are left with an unrebutted statement that claimed “spatial data” in Alexandrescu is not captured by “a monitoring system comprising a range imaging camera,” as per claim 1, or “with a range imaging camera,” as per claim 10, or “receive[d] . . . from a range imaging camera,” as per claim 17. As such, for the foregoing reasons, we agree with Appellant that in Alexandrescu “data indicative of ‘the distance of the objects from one another’ is not captured with a range imaging camera.” Reply Brief (filed Dec. 16, 2019, hereinafter “Reply Br.”) 4. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 1, 10, and 17, and their respective dependent claims 2–5 and 12–14, as unpatentable over Alexandrescu and Bouvier. Rejections II–IV The Examiner’s use of the Bonfiglio, Mostafavi, and Klingenbeck- Regn disclosures does not remedy the deficiency of Alexandrescu discussed supra. See Final Act. 4–5. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 6, 15, and 19 as unpatentable over Alexandrescu, Bouvier, and Bonfiglio; of claims 7, 16, and 20 as unpatentable over Alexandrescu, Bouvier, and Appeal 2020-001333 Application 13/451,579 6 Mostafavi; and of claims 9, 18, 21, and 22 as unpatentable over Alexandrescu, Bouvier, and Klingenbeck-Regn. CONCLUSION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 10, 12–14, 17 103(a) Alexandrescu, Bouvier 1–5, 10, 12–14, 17 6, 15, 19 103(a) Alexandrescu, Bouvier, Bonfiglio 6, 15, 19 7, 16, 20 103(a) Alexandrescu, Bouvier, Mostafavi 7, 16, 20 9, 18, 21, 22 103(a) Alexandrescu, Bouvier, Klingenbeck-Regn 9, 18, 21, 22 Overall Outcome 1–7, 9, 10, 12–22 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation