Ex Parte Mittal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2016

12487223 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/487,223 06/18/2009
28524 7590 02/25/2016
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sushi! Mittal
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.
2008Pl8485 USOl 6753
EXAMINER
EVOY, NICHOLAS LANE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3768
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2016 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
Exparte SUSHIL MITTAL, YEFENG ZHENG,
BOGDAN GEORGESCU, FERNANDO VEGA-HIGUERA,
and DORIN COMANICIU
Appeal2013-006198
Application 12/487,223
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, THOMAS F. SMEGAL, and MARK A. GEIER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Sushil Mittal et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-11, 14--18, and 20-24. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2013-006198
Application 12/487,223
BACKGROUND
Independent claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal, and is
reproduced below with key disputed limitations italicized.
1. A method for detecting coronary stenosis in a cardiac
computed tomography (CT) volume, comprising:
obtaining at least one coronary artery centerline in said
CT volume, said at least one coronary artery centerline
comprising a plurality of control points; and
detecting stenosis regions along said at least one
coronary artery centerline in said CT volume by classifYing
each of said plurality of control points as a stenosis point or a
non-stenosis point using a trained classifier.
Appeal Br. Claims App.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
non-statutory subject matter. Ans. 7.
II. Claims 1, 5-7, 9-11, 14--18, and 21-24 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Isgum (Isgum, et al., Detection of
coronary calcifications from computed tomography scans for automated risk
assessment of coronary artery disease, MED. PHYS. 34(4), 1450-1461 (April
2007). Ans. 7.
III. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Is gum. Ans. 10.
IV. Claims 3, 4, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Is gum and Tu (Tu et al., Automated Extraction of the
Cortical Sulci Based on a Supervised Learning Approach, IEEE
2
Appeal2013-006198
Application 12/487,223
TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, vol. 26, no. 4, 541-552 (April 2007). 1
Ans. 10.
Rejection I- §101
Abstract Idea
OPINION
Claim 1 recites obtaining a centerline comprising control points and
classifying the control points as a stenosis point or a non-stenosis point using
a trained classifier. Appeal Br. Claims App.
Claims 1-10 are directed to the statutory subject matter of a
"process," but the Examiner finds that they are directed to the judicial
exception of an abstract idea, because the claimed process manipulates only
numbers, abstract concepts or ideas, or signals, and therefore is not being
applied to appropriate subject matter. Ans. 7, 12 (citing MPEP § 2106 and
Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972)); see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.
v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (abstract ideas are not
patentable). The first step in the analysis is to determine whether the claims
at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2355.
Appellants first argue that "[t]he Examiner has not shown that claims
1-10 are directed to laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas."
Appeal Br. 4--5. Appellants contend that the claims "present functional and
palpable applications in the field of computer and medical imaging
1 Claim 13 has been canceled. See Response after Final, dated June 22,
2012.
3
Appeal2013-006198
Application 12/487,223
technology," and "result in detected locations of coronary stenosis in a
patient, which is clearly a useful, concrete, and tangible result." Id. at 5.
The Examiner responds that the claims are directed to non-statutory
subject matter because the acts of Appellants' process "manipulate only
numbers, abstract concepts or ideas, or signals representing any of the
foregoing, [and] the acts are not being applied to appropriate subject matter."
Ans. 12 (citing Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972)). The
Examiner responds, additionally, that the claimed obtaining and detecting do
not require a particular machine, and are "directed to a series of steps which
could be performed purely mentally in the mind of an operator." Ans. 12-
13.
Appellants reply that the claimed "trained classifier" is a leaming-
based classifier that is trained based on training data, and one skilled in the
art would understand that classification based thereon could not be
performed as a mental step in the mind of an operator. Reply Br. 3.
Appellants' argument that the mind of an operator could not classify
control points using the claimed "trained classifier"2 was presented for the
first time in the Reply Brief without any showing of good cause. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41. We decline to consider this argument absent an opportunity for the
Examiner to respond. In addition, we agree with the Examiner that, if the
operator could employ a "trained classifier" as claimed, the obtaining and
determining steps could be performed in the operator's mind.
2 The Specification defines a "trained classifier" to include, for example, "a
PBT classifier trained based on training data using various local features."
Spec. iTiT 6, 18.
4
Appeal2013-006198
Application 12/487,223
Based upon the Examiner's findings, we determine that Appellants'
claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
Transformation
Having determined the independent claims are directed to an abstract
idea, we tum to the second step of the Mayo and Alice analysis to consider
the claim elements individually and as an ordered combination to determine
whether any additional elements/features transform the nature of the claim
into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2355; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297.
Relevant to elements that transform the nature of the claims,
Appellants argue that the claimed subject matter results in detected locations
of coronary stenosis in a patient. Appeal Br. 5. We are not persuaded that
the existence of such a result ensures that the claim is more than a drafting
effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea.
Appellants also argue that the claimed "trained classifier" is a
learning-based classifier that is trained based on training data, and one
skilled in the art would understand that classification based thereon could
not be performed as a mental step (Reply Br. 3) but, as stated above, this
argument is presented for the first time on appeal and, absent a showing of
good cause, we decline to consider its merits without an opportunity for the
Examiner to respond. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41.
Appellants also argue that the process of claims 1-10 is drawn to
statutory subject matter because it manipulates a computed tomography (CT)
image representing a patient's cardiac region, and that "a method that
transforms image data representing physical and tangible objects is
5
Appeal2013-006198
Application 12/487,223
considered to transform an article." Appeal Br. 6 (citing Jn re Bilski, 545
F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (discussing the machine-or-transformation
test)).
In response, the Examiner contends that the CT image is not
transformed, but rather "is equivalent to a matrix of data and numbers
subject to mathematical operations." Ans. 12, 13-14.
According to the Supreme Court, "the machine-or-transformation test
is a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether
some claimed inventions are processes under§ 101." Bilski v. Kappas, 130
S.Ct. 3218, 3227 (2010). The Federal Circuit has subsequently held that the
machine or transformation step may provide guidance in analyzing the
second step of the Alice framework. Ultramerical, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772
F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We agree with the Examiner that claim 1
does not pass the machine-or-transformation test, i.e., that it is not tied to a
particular machine or apparatus and does not transform a particular article to
a different state or thing. We are not persuaded that obtaining a centerline
comprising control points and classifying the obtained control points via a
trained classifier requires a transformation of matter. The claimed
"obtaining" and "detecting" do not transform the CT image, but at most
analyze it. Thus, the result of the machine-or-transformation test does not
weigh in favor of claim 1 being directed to the statutory subject matter.
For the reasons set forth above, we sustain Rejection I.
Rejection II
As stated above, independent claim 1 recites obtaining a centerline
comprising control points and classifying the control points as a stenosis
6
Appeal2013-006198
Application 12/487,223
point or a non-stenosis point using a trained classifier. Appeal Br. Claims
App.
The Examiner finds that Isgum discloses the claimed invention, citing
generally to its pages 1450-1452. Ans. 8.
Appellants respond that Isgum mentions manually-tracked centerlines
in its background section and discloses using classifiers to determine if
candidate regions include stenosis. Appeal Br. 8. Isgum's candidate regions
are "extracted us[ing] intensity thresholding and are not control points along
a coronary artery centerline." Id. Appellants contend that "[t]here is no
description in Is gum of using a classifier to separately classify each of a
plurality of control points along a coronary artery centerline in order to
detect whether each control point is a stenosis point or a non-stenosis point."
Id.
While Isgum discloses manually identifying a centerline (which may
inherently include control points) and determining whether certain candidate
regions include stenosis based on a classifier, the Examiner has not bridged
the gap in Isgum that exists between a manually-identified centerline and the
candidate regions that are classified therein. We agree with Appellants that,
even if control points inherently exist in a centerline, Isgum's candidate
regions would not be understood by one skilled in the art to be the claimed
control points of a centerline. Because establishing anticipation under 35
U.S.C. § 102 requires that each and every limitation of the claim be found
expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1. Independent claim 18 includes the same recitation as
claim 1, and independent claim 11 includes similar recitations. The rejection
of independent claims 11 and 18 therefore includes the same deficiency.
7
Appeal2013-006198
Application 12/487,223
Claims 5-7, 9, andlO depend directly or indirectly from independent claim
1. Claims 14--17 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 11.
Claims 21-24 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 18. We
therefore do not sustain Rejection II.
Rejections III and IV
Claims 3, 4, and 8 depend from independent claim 1, and claim 20
depends from independent claim 18. The Examiner does not determine that
Isgum renders obvious, or that Tu discloses, subject matter that bridges the
gap in Isgum between a manually-identified centerline and the candidate
regions that are classified therein. We therefore do not sustain Rejections II
and IV for the reason set forth above regarding Rejection II.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 9-11, 14--18, and 21-24
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Isgum.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Isgum.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 3, 4, 13, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Isgum and Tu.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8