CHILDREN'S NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 14, 2021

2021003974 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 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. 14/491,794 09/19/2014 Kyle WU 434883US124TRACK I 6618 22850 7590 12/14/2021 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. 1940 DUKE STREET ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER CWERN, JONATHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3793 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/14/2021 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): OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM iahmadi@oblon.com patentdocket@oblon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KYLE WU, PENG CHENG, PETER KIM, and OZGUR GULER ____________ Appeal 2021-003974 Application 14/491,794 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, 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 1-24, 26-29, 31-35, and 37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We REVERSE. 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 Children’s National Medical Center. (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2021-003974 Application 14/491,794 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a system for determining characteristics of a medical injury (Spec. page 3, lines 21, 22). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A system for determining characteristics of a medical injury, comprising: one or more imaging sensors that obtain imaging information and topology information of an area of interest, the imaging information including two-dimensional information of objects in the area of interest and the topology information including three- dimensional information of objects in the area of interest; and processing circuitry configured to determine, using the imaging information, a two-dimensional boundary of an injury portion within the imaging information, wherein the two-dimensional boundary of the injury portion is a locus of points enclosing the injury portion, map only the locus of points enclosing the injury portion within the imaging information to a corresponding locus of points within the topology information based on a fixed geometric relationship between the one or more imaging sensors, generate a three-dimensional point cloud based on the corresponding locus of points within the topology information, the three-dimensional point cloud defining the medical injury, and determine characteristics of the medical injury based on the three-dimensional point cloud, wherein the characteristics include a depth of the medical injury, and the characteristics are displayed for assessment of the medical injury. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1, 4-10, 13-15, 17-19, 22-24, 27-29, 31-35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Prokoski Appeal 2021-003974 Application 14/491,794 3 (US 2010/0172567 A1, pub. July 8, 2010) and John (US 2008/0075343 A1, pub. Mar. 27, 2008). 2. Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 16, 20, 21, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Prokoski, John, and Maheswari (Interactive Liver Tumor Segmentation Using Graph Cut and Grab Cut, 2 Int’l J. Res. Eng’g Tech. 609-14 (2013)). 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 evidence.2 ANALYSIS The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because the cited prior art fails to disclose recited and argued claim limitations (Appeal Br. 19-24). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is proper (Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 3-6). We agree with the Appellant. The Appellant at page 19 of the Appeal Brief argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose the claim limitations for: map only the locus of points enclosing the injury portion within the imaging information to a corresponding locus of points within the topology information based on a fixed geometric relationship between the one or more imaging sensors, [and] 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). Appeal 2021-003974 Application 14/491,794 4 generate a three-dimensional point cloud based on the corresponding locus of points within the topology information, the three-dimensional point cloud defining the medical injury (claim 1, emphasis added). Here, the cited claim limitation requires in part “map[ping] only the locus of points enclosing the injury portion within the imaging information to a corresponding locus of points within the topology information” based on a fixed relationship between the sensors and then “generat[ing] a three- dimensional point cloud based on the corresponding locus of points within the topology information” with the cloud defining the medical injury. The rejection of record cites to these argued claim limitations as being disclosed by Prokoski at paragraphs 67, 81-83, 100, and 101; and John at paragraphs 45, 46, and 52 (Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 3-6). Here, the above citations to Prokoski and John fail to specifically disclose the argued claim limitations. For example, Prokoski at paragraph 100 does disclose using “point cloud” information with 3D graphical information but this does not specifically disclose “map[ping] only the locus of points enclosing the injury portion within the imaging information to a corresponding locus of points within the topology information” and then “generat[ing] a three-dimensional point cloud based on the corresponding locus of points within the topology information” with the cloud defining the medical injury. John at paragraph 46 does disclose “extract[ing] the lesions from the myocardium image dataset” and that the “myocardium image dataset can be further ‘cut’, in that only the image data for those regions which contain lesions is retained” but this fails to disclose “map[ping]only the locus of points enclosing the injury portion” as well. Appeal 2021-003974 Application 14/491,794 5 For these reasons the rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 10 and 19 which are drawn to similar subject matter, and the dependent claims listed under the rejection of 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Prokoski and John is not sustained. The rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 16, 20, 21, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Prokoski, John, and Maheswari is not sustained as the Maheswari reference fails to cure the deficiencies in the base rejection of independent claim 1. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4-10, 13-15, 17-19, 22-24, 27-29, 31-35, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Prokoski and John. We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 16, 20, 21, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Prokoski, John, and Maheswari. Appeal 2021-003974 Application 14/491,794 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4-10, 13- 15, 17-19, 22-24, 27- 29, 31-35, 37 103 Prokoski, John 1, 4-10, 13- 15, 17-19, 22-24, 27- 29, 31-35, 37 2, 3, 11, 12, 16, 20, 21, 26 103 Prokoski, John, Maheswari 2, 3, 11, 12, 16, 20, 21, 26 Overall Outcome 1-24, 26- 29, 31-35, 37 REVERSED