GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 14, 2022

2020005904 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2022)

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. 15/704,924 09/14/2017 Sushma Rai 61283US01 (317289-2) 5981 23446 7590 01/14/2022 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD 500 WEST MADISON STREET SUITE 3400 CHICAGO, IL 60661 EXAMINER TRAN, QUOC A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2177 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/14/2022 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): mhmpto@mcandrews-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SUSHMA RAI Appeal 2020-005904 Application 15/704,924 Technology Center 2100 Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1,2 1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed April 30, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”) and Reply Brief filed August 13, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 16, 2020 (“Non-Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 19, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Specification filed September 14, 2017 (“Spec.”). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents. 2 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 General Electric Company. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-005904 Application 15/704,924 2 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 6, 9-12, 14, 17, 18, and 20. Non- Final Act. 1. Claims 5, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, and 19 are indicated as allowable. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant the claims are directed to ultrasound imaging providing enhanced visualization by predicting an image depth selection. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below with dispositive disputed limitations emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: presenting, at a display system, ultrasound image data acquired according to an initial depth setting; receiving, via a user input module, a user input adjusting a zoom level of the ultrasound image data presented at the display system; processing, by a processor, the ultrasound image data presented at the display system to instantaneously and smoothly transition to the adjusted zoom level in response to the user input; receiving, via the user input module, a user input selecting a selected zoom level of the ultrasound image data presented at the display system; determining, by the processor, a modified depth setting corresponding to the selected zoom level; and acquiring updated ultrasound image data based on the modified depth setting for display at the display system. Appeal Br. 37 (Claims App.). REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Appeal 2020-005904 Application 15/704,924 3 Name3 Reference Date Mo US 6,123,670 Sept. 26, 2000 Ma US 2014/0044325 A1 Feb. 13, 2014 Matsuki US 2014/0300569 A1 Oct. 9, 2014 The Examiner rejects: a. Claims 1-3, 6, 9-11, 14, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Ma and Mo (Non-Final Act. 3-16); and b. Claims 4 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Ma, Mo, and Matsuki (id. at 17-18). ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of references teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of “determining, by the processor, a modified depth setting corresponding to the selected zoom level; and acquiring updated ultrasound image data based on the modified depth setting for display at the display system” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings of Ma and Mo. Non-Final Act. 3-8. The Examiner relies upon Ma’s disclosure of overlaying 3D images (e.g., MRI) and ultrasound imaging to produce a superimposed image for teaching the majority of the limitations of claim 1. Id. at 3-7 (citing Ma ¶¶ 5-6, 9, 14, 17, 60, 73-75, 88, 121; Fig. 9B). However, the Examiner finds, “Ma does not teach expressly . . . 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2020-005904 Application 15/704,924 4 processing, by a processor, the ultrasound image data presented at the display system to instantaneously and smoothly transition to the adjusted zoom level in response to the user input.” Id. at 7 (emphasis omitted). To remedy the noted deficiency of Ma, the Examiner finds Mo’s disclosure of a zoom mode teaches the recited processor and zoom transition. Id. (citing Mo 2:40-60; 3:4-15; 6:32; Abstract). The Examiner reasons one skilled in the art would have modified Ma’s ultrasound imaging system to include Mo’s zoom functionality to “enable[] the user to move the optimal image quality [region of interest] freely within the big picture.” Id. at 8 (citing Mo 3:15-30). Appellant contends the Examiner errs in finding that Ma teaches the disputed limitation of determining, by the processor, a modified depth setting corresponding to the selected zoom level. Appeal Br. 14-24. Appellant argues Ma discloses (i) manual adjustment of a depth setting in response to user input (id. at 15-16, 18-19, 21-24) and (ii) automatic depth adjustment during an ultrasound probe calibration routine (id. at 16-17). However, Appellant argues, neither of Ma’s depth adjustments include a processor’s determination of depth setting corresponding to a selected zoom level. According to Appellant, user selection of a depth setting “is different than selecting a zoom level used by a processor to determine a modified depth setting for acquiring updated ultrasound data” as required by claim 1. Id. at 19. Appellant further argues: Ma’s disclosure of reformatting a 3D image to reflect a manual user adjustment in the currently displayed 2D ultrasound image depth is different than selecting a zoom level in first ultrasound image data, determining a modified depth setting corresponding to the selected zoom level, and acquiring updated ultrasound data Appeal 2020-005904 Application 15/704,924 5 based on the modified depth setting, as set forth in Appellant’s independent claims. Id. at 23-24. The Examiner responds that, when given its broadest reasonable interpretation, the disputed limitation is taught by Ma, finding as follows. Ma teaches . . . a selected zoom level (provided by adjusting the zoom level of ultrasound image data acquired at a first depth) to determine a modified depth setting, and using the modified depth setting to acquire updated ultrasound image data. Instead, the cited paragraphs describe rescaling 3D images to correct alignment between the two images after a user manually changes a [field of view (FOV)], zoom, or depth in the ultrasound image or calibrates the ultrasound system and ultrasound probe; which is in the BRI [Broadest Reasonable Interpretation] is the same as selecting a zoom level . . . as set forth in Appellant’s independent claimed; (i.e., . . . receiving, via the user input module, a user input selecting a selected zoom level of the ultrasound image data presented at the display system . . . .[] See independent claim 1). Ans. 21-22. The Examiner concludes, “Ma teaches [a] user selects the depth setting, which is in the BRI [Broadest Reasonable Interpretation]; which is similar to selecting a zoom level used by a processor to determine a modified depth setting for acquiring updated ultrasound data as claimed.” Id. at 26-27 (second set of bracketing in original) (emphasis omitted). Appellant replies, contending the Examiner’s Answer is a repetition of findings and conclusions presented in prior Office Actions and addressed with particularity in Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Reply Br. 4. Appellant emphasizes “the present application addresses problems with the conventional approach of determining a desired depth of an ultrasound scan by trial and error.” Id. at 5 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 3-6). According to Appellant, Appeal 2020-005904 Application 15/704,924 6 To solve these problems, the present application discloses predicting an image depth selection. Specifically, the present application discloses predicting an image depth selection based on a selected zoom level adjustment in first acquired ultrasound image data, and acquiring and displaying second ultrasound image data according to an updated depth setting corresponding with the user selected zoom level. Id. at 5-6 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 9, 17). We are persuaded the rejection is improper because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to support the asserted interpretation of the subject disputed limitation. During examination, “claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, [] and [] claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citation omitted); In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[T]he PTO must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any definitions presented in the specification.”) (citation omitted); In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.”). Appellant’s Specification discloses “the conventional trial and error approach for determining a desired depth for an ultrasound examination can be an inefficient, time-consuming process for an ultrasound operator.” Spec. ¶ 7. Appellant’s claims implement a solution to this problem by providing “[a] system [and] method . . . for enhanced visualization of ultrasound images by predicting an image depth selection.” Spec. ¶ 9. Rather than Appeal 2020-005904 Application 15/704,924 7 requiring an operator to manually determine a depth setting by trial and error, claim 1 recites determining, by the processor, a modified depth setting corresponding to the selected zoom level. The modified depth setting is determined based on a prediction that is described as follows. [S]ignal processor 132 may include a depth setting module 150 that comprises suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces and/or code that may be operable to predict an image depth selection. The depth setting module 150 may predict the depth selection based on the zoom level selected via the image zoom module 140. The predicted depth selection may be applied by the depth setting module 150 to the ultrasound system 100 to perform a subsequent ultrasound image scan. In various embodiments, the predicted depth selection may be calculated by the depth setting module 150 based on the following: 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃ℎ 𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = � 𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃ℎ 𝑆𝑆𝑜𝑜 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃 𝑈𝑈𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑡𝑡𝐼𝐼𝑃𝑃 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑡𝑡𝐼𝐼𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝑡𝑡𝐷𝐷 𝑍𝑍𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐼𝐼 % � × 100 Spec. ¶ 41. We note that the disclosed relationship expressed by the formula above is further recited by dependent claim 5 which the Examiner indicates as being allowable. Consistent with the doctrine of claim differentiation,4 claim 1 is not limited to the precise prediction formula recited by claim 5. However, to be consistent with the Specification, neither can claim 1 be interpreted so broadly as to encompass a direct manual input of the predicated depth selection such that no determination is made by the processor other than to receive the manually provided setting. Not only does 4 Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, “the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation raises a presumption that the limitation in question is not found in the independent claim.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Appeal 2020-005904 Application 15/704,924 8 the Specification distinguish between manual user input and the process by which a modified depth setting is determined, but so does claim 1 distinguish between user input, such as for adjusting a zoom level, that is received by a user input module and the disputed modified depth setting that is determined by a processor. “[W]hen an applicant uses different terms in a claim it is permissible to infer that he intended his choice of different terms to reflect a differentiation in the meaning of those terms.” Inova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For the reasons discussed above, we disagree a reasonable interpretation of the limitation, “determining, by the processor, a modified depth setting corresponding to the selected zoom level,” includes direct user input or selection of the modified depth setting. Appeal Br. 37. That is, the limitation, when read in light of the Specification, requires more than a processor receiving the modified depth setting from a user without the processor performing some processing to derive (i.e., determine) the setting based on, at least in part, a selected zoom level. Accordingly, the Examiner errs in finding Ma’s user input or selection of a modified depth setting teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of determining, by the processor, a modified depth setting corresponding to the selected zoom level. We are also unpersuaded Ma’s disclosure adjusting a depth setting as part of an ultrasound probe calibration routine teaches the disputed limitation (Final Act. 4; Ans. 3) because the Examiner does not adequately demonstrate that these depth adjustments are based on determining a modified depth setting corresponding to a selected zoom level. Merely Appeal 2020-005904 Application 15/704,924 9 cycling through each possible depth as disclosed by Ma fails to teach the depth settings correspond to a user-selected zoom level. See Ma ¶ 121. Because our decision with respect to this limitation is dispositive, we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, or the rejection of independent claims 9 and 17 which include language similar to the argued limitation of claim 1. Nor do we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11, and 12 which stand with their respective base. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of: a. Claims 1-3, 6, 9-11, 14, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Ma and Mo; and b. Claims 4 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Ma, Mo, and Matsuki. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 6, 9-11, 14, 17, 18, 20 103 Ma, Mo 1-3, 6, 9-11, 14, 17, 18, 20 4, 12 103 Ma, Mo, Matsuki 4, 12 Overall Outcome 1-4, 6, 9-12, 14, 17, 18, 20 REVERSED