KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 30, 2021

2021001355 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 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. 15/531,778 05/31/2017 SHYAM BHARAT 2014P01272WOUS 1033 24737 7590 09/30/2021 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 1600 Summer Street 5th Floor Stamford, CT 06905 EXAMINER NGUYEN, HIEN NGOC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3793 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/30/2021 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): katelyn.mulroy@philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com patti.demichele@Philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHYAM BHARAT, EHSAN DEHGHAN MARVAST, MOLLY LARA FLEXMAN, JOCHEN KRUECKER, MARISSA PATROCOA DREYER, and AMIR MOHAMMAD THMASEBI MARAGHOOSH Appeal 2021-001355 Application 15/531,778 Technology Center 3700 Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, 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 2–9, 12, 13, 15, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 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 Koninklijke Philips, N.V. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-001355 Application 15/531,778 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “an ultrasound-guided intervention involving a registration of a needle to a three-dimensional (‘3D’) ultrasound volume.” Spec. 1, ll. 4–5. Claim 2, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 2. An intervention system comprising: an optical shape sensing tool configured to generate shape data indicative of a shape of the optical shape sensing tool; a grid operable to guide an insertion of a distal end of optical shape sensing tool into an anatomical region relative to a grid coordinate system; an ultrasound probe registered to the grid coordinate system and configured to generate image data of the anatomical region; and one or more processors configured to: reconstruct a shape of at least a segment of the distal end of the optical shape sensing tool in a needle coordinate system having an origin at a point on the optical shape sensing tool from the shape data generated by the optical shape sensing tool, generate an ultrasound image of the anatomical region including at least the segment of the distal end of the optical shape sensing tool in an image coordinate system registered to the grid coordinate system from the image data, detect the shape of at least the segment of the distal end of the optical shape sensing tool within the ultrasound image, and register the needle coordinate system to at least one of the grid and image coordinate systems based on the reconstructed shape of at least the segment of the distal end of the optical shape sensing tool and the detected shape of the distal end within the ultrasound image. Appeal 2021-001355 Application 15/531,778 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Feigl US 2003/0158562 A1 Aug. 21, 2003 Cheng WO 2007/085953 A1 Aug. 2, 2007 Downey US 2009/0093715 A1 Apr. 9, 2009 Bharat WO 2013/030749 A2 Mar. 7, 2013 Desjardins US 2013/0188855 A1 July 25, 2013 Fichtinger US 2014/0121501 A1 May 1, 2014 REJECTIONS Claims 8 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2. Claims 2–4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Downey, Fichtinger, and Desjardins. Final Act. 3. Claims 5, 7, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Downey, Fichtinger, Desjardins, and Cheng. Final Act. 8. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Downey, Fichtinger, Desjardins, and Bharat. Final Act. 10. Claims 6, 13, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Downey, Fichtinger, Desjardins, and Feigl. Final Act. 11. OPINION Written Description The Examiner asserts that “[t]he specification does not disclose how to register the needle coordinate system to the grid coordinate system using the shape of the optical fiber.” Ans. 4. Appellant explains how the registration uses the shape of the optical fiber, pointing to Figures 11 and 12 as well as page 16 of the Specification. Reply Br. 2. We find this Appeal 2021-001355 Application 15/531,778 4 explanation adequate to comprise proper written description support. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. Desjardins All of the Examiner’s rejections rely on Desjardins teaching the claimed “optical shape sensing tool configured to generate shape data indicative of a shape of the optical shape sensing tool,” as recited in claim 1. As Appellant points out, however, Desjardins teaches that tether 300 includes optical shape sensing fibers, but tool 200 does not. Reply Br. 3. Appellant notes that this is significant because “[a]ny bending of the tool places the physical tip of the tool in a different location than is projected by the framed stereotaxy system.” Reply Br. 4. Desjardins only knows the shape of the tether and has to assume the shape, and therefore location of the tip, of the tool based on its assumed shape in relation to the tether. This identification of the location of the tip in Desjardins also assumes that the tool as being used is the same shape as the tool prior to insertion. As Appellant points out, however, the tool may bend during use, thus causing the tip of the tool to be in a different location than what would be identified by Desjardins’ assumptions. Reply Br. 4. Accordingly, because Desjardins has shape sensing in the tether, and not the tool tip, as claimed, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections. None of the other references, as applied by the Examiner, cures this defect in Desjardins. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. Appeal 2021-001355 Application 15/531,778 5 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 8, 15 112(a) Written Description 8, 15 2–4 103 Downey, Fichtinger, Desjardins 2–4 5, 7, 12 103 Downey Fichtinger, Desjardins, Cheng 5, 7, 12 9 103 Downey, Fichtinger, Desjardins, Bharat 9 6, 13, 21 103 Downey, Fichtinger, Desjardins, Feigl 6, 13, 21 Overall Outcome 2–9, 12, 13, 15, 21 REVERSED