Ex Parte Hoctor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 23, 2017

13033896 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 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. 13/033,896 02/24/2011 Ralph Thomas Hoctor 246661-1 9757 6147 7590 03/27/2017 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY GLOBAL RESEARCH ONE RESEARCH CIRCLE BLDG. K1-3A59 NISKAYUNA, NY 12309 EXAMINER MILLER, ROSE MARY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2855 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2017 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): haeckl@ge.com gpo.mail@ge.com Lori.e.rooney @ ge.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RALPH THOMAS HOCTOR and STEPHEN ERIC ZINGELEWICZ Appeal 2016-001127 Application 13/033.896 Technology Center 2800 Before CHUNG K. PAK, TERRY J. OWENS, and CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’ rejection of claims 1—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim an ultrasound imaging method, system and computer program product. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for ultrasound imaging, the method comprising: defining a plurality of subarrays of an array, wherein each of the plurality of subarrays comprises a plurality of ultrasound transducers elements; transmitting a set of ultrasound beams from at least one of the subarrays that illuminates a region to be imaged within an object under Appeal 2016-001127 Application 13/033,896 nondestructive test, wherein the set of ultrasound beams are transmitted at a plurality of beamsteering angles; receiving a plurality of ultrasound reflections at the array corresponding to the plurality of ultrasound beams; processing the ultrasound reflections and forming ultrasound element measurements, and selecting one set of ultrasound element measurements for a point to be imaged based on a beamsteering angle of the corresponding ultrasound beams, wherein the selected set of ultrasound element measurements corresponds to the ultrasound beams having a beamsteering angle closet to an angle from the array to the point to be imaged; reconstructing a sample of an ultrasound image of the object under nondestructive test based on the selected set of ultrasound element measurements; and reconstructing a plurality of such samples to form an ultrasound image. The Rejections Claims 1—24 stand rejected as follows: under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the Appellants regard as the invention and under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement. OPINION We reverse the rejections. We need address only the independent claims (1, 7, 14 and 20). Each of those claims requires “a beamsteering angle closest to an angle from the array to the point to be imaged”. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph “[T]he indefmiteness inquiry asks whether the claims ‘circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.’” Marley Mouldings Ltd. v. Mikron Indus. Inc., 417 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971)). 2 Appeal 2016-001127 Application 13/033,896 The Examiner concludes that the claim requirement of “a beamsteering angle closest to an angle from the array to the point to be imaged” is indefinite because the angle can be from either end of the array or any point within it and there is no recitation of a specific frame of reference from which the angle is determined or guidance regarding change in the angle as the array moves relative to the object (Ans. 3, 7). The claims broadly encompass any beamsteering angle closest to an angle from the array to the point to be imaged. A claim is not indefinite merely because it is broad. See In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970) (“Breadth is not indefmiteness.”); In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 909 (CCPA 1970). Hence, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph To comply with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description requirement, an applicant’s specification must “convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention.” Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563—64 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). The Examiner finds that the Appellants’ original Specification provides written descriptive support only for “a beamsteering angle closest to an angle from center of the subarray to the point to be imaged”, not for the broader recitation of “a beamsteering angle closest to an angle from the array to the point to be imaged” which, the Examiner concludes, encompasses any angle within a 2D or 3D array (Ans. 2—3, 5—6). 3 Appeal 2016-001127 Application 13/033,896 The Appellants’ original Specification discloses that “the transmit beamformer 107 in one example causes the subarrays to transmit distinct beams of ultrasound energy, at preset beamsteering angles, using only the transducer elements of that subarray” (117) and that “[t]he image reconstruction processor 120 in one example selects the set of ultrasound measurements corresponding to the transmitted ultrasound beam having a beamsteering angle closest to the angle of a line segment joining the center of the subarray to the point to be imaged” (123), but also more broadly discloses an embodiment wherein “the selected set of ultrasound element measurements corresponds to the ultrasound beam having a beamsteering angle closest to the angle of the point to be imaged” (134). Moreover, the original Specification discloses that a variety of factors including the number of elements and their spacing in subarrays, aperture width and beam width “may also be considered while computing the appropriate beamsteering angle to cover the entire area to be imaged” (131). Thus, the Appellants’ original Specification would have conveyed with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the Appellants were in possession of ultrasound beams which, as broadly recited, have a beamsteering angle closest to an angle from the array to the point to be imaged. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection under 35U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. DECISION/ORDER The rejections of claims 1—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph and under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description requirement are reversed. 4 Appeal 2016-001127 Application 13/033,896 It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED 5