KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 1, 2021

2021001442 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 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. 14/648,382 05/29/2015 Erik Martinus Hubertus Petrus Van Dijk 2012P01464WOUS 5041 24737 7590 11/01/2021 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 1600 Summer Street 5th Floor Stamford, CT 06905 EXAMINER PARK, PATRICIA JOO YOUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3793 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/01/2021 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 ERIK MARTINUS HUBERTUS PETRUS VAN DIJK Appeal 2021-001442 Application 14/648,382 Technology Center 3700 Before JILL D. HILL, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, 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, 3–10, and 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 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. 2. Appeal 2021-001442 Application 14/648,382 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate to an interventional system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An interventional system comprising: a controller with a memory that stores instructions; a processor that executes the instructions, wherein, when executed by the processor, the instructions cause the controller to execute a process comprising: moving an introduction element within an object by a moving unit; generating tracking images of the introduction element within the object by a tracking image generating unit, wherein a radiation beam for traversing the object is emitted by a radiation source and a collimator, which collimates the radiation beam, of the tracking image generating unit, and the collimated radiation beam is detected after having traversed the object by a radiation detector of the tracking image generating unit; providing movement parameters, which define a movement of the introduction element within the object, to the tracking image generating unit; and controlling the collimator so the radiation beam is collimated depending on the movement parameters such that the collimated radiation beam traverses a region of the object that includes the introduction element. Appeal 2021-001442 Application 14/648,382 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Lewin US 2004/0044279 A1 Mar. 4, 2004 Lloyd US 2008/0119725 A1 May 22, 2008 Heuscher US 2010/0274120 A1 Oct. 28, 2010 Wenderow US 2012/0179167 A1 Jul. 12, 2012 REJECTIONS2 Claims 1, 3, 5, 8–10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heuscher and Wenderow. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heuscher, Wenderow, and Lewin. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heuscher, Wenderow, and Lloyd. OPINION Appellant presents arguments directed to claim 1, and relies on those arguments for the patentability of claims 3–10 and 16.3 Appeal Br. 8–15. 2 The Examiner applies 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) to several claim limitations. Final Act. 7–12. Although Appellant disagrees with the determination that those limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (Appeal Br. 4–8), that disagreement does not impact the arguments made relative to the prior art rejections (id. at 8–15). Because those claim interpretations do not affect our decision, and because there is not an actual rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, we do not address the application of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) in this decision. 3 For the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 8–10, and 16 Appellant argues the claims as a group and we select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2021-001442 Application 14/648,382 4 Appellant argues that “Heuscher teaches controlling movement (e.g., axial and rotational) of the X-ray source 112 and detector 124 in order to keep a narrow cone beam in the region where an instrument tip 144 is included during actual tracking of the instrument tip 144.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant contends that “while Heuscher may teach tracking the collimator component, the document does not teach controlling the collimator so the radiation beam is collimated[ ] depending on the movement parameters such that the collimated radiation beam traverses a region of the object that includes the introduction element.” Id.; see also Reply Br. 4. Appellant contends that “[e]ven assuming arguendo but certainly not conceding that a detected position of a medical instrument suffices for a movement parameter, there is no disclosure in Heuscher of controlling a collimator to collimate a radiation beam based on the detected position.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive. Claim 1 is broad, and does not require any particular manner in which the “movement parameters” are determined. We agree with the Examiner that, in its current form, the recited “movement parameters” can be the detected position of the medical device. Although the Specification provides an example where the movement parameters are associated with the robotic unit used to displace the catheter (Spec. 7:31–8:2), this level of specificity is found nowhere in the claim. As acknowledged by Appellant (Appeal Br. 10), Heuscher teaches “control[ling] rotational and axial movement of the X-ray source 112 and the X-ray detector 124.” Heuscher ¶ 27. As the Examiner notes (Final Act. 13– 14; Ans. 6), Heuscher teaches that “[t]he CT scanner and CT controller are additionally coupled to a collimator controller 140 that controls movement, Appeal 2021-001442 Application 14/648,382 5 and opening and closing, of a collimator 142 positioned between the X-ray source and the examination region 108.” Heuscher ¶ 27. Indeed, Heusher expressly states that its “medical instrument . . . is maintained in a field of view of the cone beam and tracked by an instrument tracking component 146.” Id. Appellant’s observation regarding instances where the Heucher’s medical instrument is not detected is unavailing. See Appeal Br. 10; Ans. 3. As explained in Heuscher, when “the tracking component does not register the instrument tip 144, then the collimator component can widen the collimator aperture to increase the scan area until the instrument tip is located at which time the cone beam can be narrowed to reduce radiation do[se] to the patient.” Heuscher ¶ 27. This is an example of controlling the collimator as recited in the claim based on the movement parameters (i.e., the detected position). The Examiner relies on Wenderow for, generally, “the details of movement parameters.” Final Act. 14. Appellant contends that Wenderow does not cure the deficiencies of Heuscher (Appeal Br. 11), but we determine there are no such deficiencies. Claim 1 does not include any detail regarding the “movement parameters.” Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s finding that Heuscher teaches the limitations involving the “movement parameters” recited in claim 1. See id. at 13–14 (citing Heuscher ¶¶ 27, 30, 31). Likewise, Appellant does not challenge the Examiner explanation that “the ‘detected position of the medical device’ satisfies claim limitation of movement as sequence/orientation of the instrument.” Ans. 6. Appeal 2021-001442 Application 14/648,382 6 Appellant fails to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–10, and 16. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 5, 8– 10, 16 103(a) Heuscher, Wenderow 1, 3, 5, 8– 10, 16 4 103(a) Heuscher, Wenderow, Lewin 4 6, 7 103(a) Heuscher, Wenderow, Lloyd 6, 7 Overall Outcome 1, 3–10, 16 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED