KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 11, 2022

2021000171 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 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. 15/116,843 08/05/2016 Oudom Somphone 2013P02019WOUS 3750 24737 7590 01/11/2022 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 1600 Summer Street 5th Floor Stamford, CT 06905 EXAMINER BEARD, CHARLES LLOYD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2616 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/11/2022 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): 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 OUDOM SOMPHONE and BENOIT JEAN-DOMINIQUE BERTRAND MAURICE MORY ____________ Appeal 2021-000171 Application 15/116,843 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1-7, 10, 11, 14, and 15, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000171 Application 15/116,843 2 II. DISCLOSED AND CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed invention “generally relates to the field of medical imaging,” and in particular to “reconstructing two-dimensional (2D) image sequences from a three-dimensional (3D) image sequence.” Spec. 1. The Specification discloses techniques for processing 3D medical image sequences over time, also known as “4D medical imaging systems, wherein the time domain is considered as fourth dimension.” Id. A common way to visualize 3D imaging data is “orthoviewing,” which “consists in displaying planar cross-sections which are arranged perpendicularly to each other.” Id. “However, the temporal dimension introduces a critical issue” because “objects of interest, such as organs, tumors, vessels, move and are deformed in all directions of the three-dimensional space and not only along one given plane,” creating “out-off-plane motion” such that the “structures of interest . . . move in and out across the derived planer cross-sections (orthoviews), so that one can easily lose sight of the them.” Id. at 1-2. The disclosed system aims to “facilitate[] the visualization of a given object or region of interest along a temporal sequence of 3D medical images” and to “overcome the problem of out-off-plane motion when deriving 2D medical image sequences from a 3D medical image sequence.” Id. at 2. Independent claim 1 follows: 1. An image reconstruction apparatus comprising: a user interface including a user input device and a display; and a processor coupled to the user interface and configured to: receive a 3D image sequence of 3D medical images over time resulting from a scan of a body part of a subject, Appeal 2021-000171 Application 15/116,843 3 receive a selection of a single point of interest, wherein the single point of interest is a spatial location within at least one of the 3D medical images of the 3D image sequence; identify one or more distinctive points in a local surrounding of the single point of interest by identifying image regions; generate three 2D view planes from the at least one of the 3D medical images by slicing the at least one of the 3D medical images through the single point of interest, wherein said three 2D view planes are perpendicular to each other and intersect at the single point of interest; determine a trajectory of the single point of interest within the 3D image sequence at least in part by tracking a position of the one or more distinctive points in the 3D image sequence over time, wherein the trajectory is a displacement of the single point of interest over time; and generate, three 2D image sequences from the three 2D view planes of the 3D image sequence by automatically adapting the point of intersection of the three 2D view planes over time along the trajectory of the single point of interest so that the position of the single point of interest is substantially constant with each of three 2D view planes when the three 2D image sequences are displayed. III. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal follows: Name Reference Date Chouno US 2010/0074475 A1 Mar. 25, 2010 Pal et al. (“Pal”) US 2012/0070068 A1 Mar. 22, 2012 Tsujita US 2015/0248750 A1 Sept. 3, 2015 Appeal 2021-000171 Application 15/116,843 4 Name Reference Date Kutsuna et al. (“Kutsuna”) US 2015/0279061 A1 Oct. 1, 2015 Somphone et al. (“Somphone”) “Fast Myocardial Motion and Strain Estimation in 3D Cardiac Ultrasound with Sparse Demons” Apr. 7-11, 2013 IV. REJECTIONS Claims 1-7, 11, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kutsuna, Pal, Tsujita, and Chouno. Final Act. 9. Claim 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kutsuna, Pal, Tsujita, Chouno, and Somphone. Final Act. 27. V. OPINION Claim 1 recites: determine a trajectory of the single point of interest within the 3D image sequence at least in part by tracking a position of the one or more distinctive points in the 3D image sequence over time, wherein the trajectory is a displacement of the single point of interest over time; and generate, three 2D image sequences from the three 2D view planes of the 3D image sequence by automatically adapting the point of intersection of the three 2D view planes over time along the trajectory of the single point of interest so that the position of the single point of interest is substantially constant with each of three 2D view planes when the three 2D image sequences are displayed. The Examiner relies on Tsujita to teach generating 2D image sequences from the 2D view plane of the 3D image sequence “by causing modification of (i.e. adapting) the POI [point mark of intersection] 1108 of Appeal 2021-000171 Application 15/116,843 5 the three 2D view planes of the single POI so that the position of the single POI is substantially constant within each of the three 2D view planes when the three 2D image sequences are displayed.” Final Act. 15 (citing Tsujita ¶¶ 93-96) (emphasis omitted); see also Ans. 7. The Examiner relies on Chouno to teach determining displacement/trajectory of the tracking point within the image sequence by tracking a position of the distinctive points in the image over time. Id. at 17 (citing Chouno ¶¶ 37-38, 40-41, 54-57, 67- 68). The Examiner also finds that Chouno’s automatically adapting the tracking point of the 2D view planes over time along the displacement/trajectory of the tracking point so that the position of the tracking point “is calculated (i.e. substantially constant) within each of the 2D view planes (i.e. X&Y) when the 2D image sequences (i.e. n-th and (n+1)-th) are displayed” teaches automatically adapting the point of intersection of the 2D view planes over time along the trajectory of the single point of interest so that the position is substantially constant within each of the 2D view planes when the 2D image sequences are displayed. Id. at 17-18 (citing Chouno ¶¶ 49, 53-59, 64, 66-68); see also Ans. 7-8. Specifically, the Examiner finds that, although “Tsujita fails to teach ‘automatically adapting the point,’ Tsujita is modified by Chouno to incorporate automatically adapting the intersection of the point of interest over time.” Ans. 9. At cited paragraph 92, Tsujita describes “two-dimensional cross- section images of three planes which are perpendicular to one another in a three-dimensional space and a three-dimensional image are displayed simultaneously.” Tsujita ¶ 92. At cited paragraph 93, Tsujita states that a “cross-section image setting mark . . . can be moved with a trackball or Appeal 2021-000171 Application 15/116,843 6 cursor.” Id. ¶ 93. Then, “in each cross-section images… a point mark of intersection 1108 which is the common point of intersection is displayed, and moving the point mark of intersection 1108 allows the positions of the cross-section images… to be moved.” Id. ¶ 94. Tsujita further explains that the “position of the point mark of intersection 1108 corresponds to the position of the point of intersection of the cross-section image setting marks . . . in the three-dimensional image . . . and moving the point mark of intersection 1108 causes the cross-section image setting marks . . . to move, as well.” Id. At cited paragraph 55, Chouno recites “perform[ing] a tracking process using the template Tn of the n-th frame (the previous frame) . . . for finding the small region that is most similar to the template Tn in the vicinity of the position of the template Tn of the n-th frame within the (n+1)th frame.” Chouno ¶ 55. Then, “[t]he position of the most similar small region becomes the tracking result (tracking point).” Id. Appellant argues that the combination of Tsujita and Kutsuna “at most suggests updating cross-sectional images to a user-selected intersection point,” but still does not teach “automatically adapting the point of intersection of the three 2D view planes over time along the trajectory of the single point of interest” as claimed. Appeal Br. 11. This argument does not undermine the Examiner’s showing. The Examiner relies on Chouno, not Tsujita and Kutsuna, to teach automatically adapting the point of intersection. See Final Act. 17-18; Ans. 7-8. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Appeal 2021-000171 Application 15/116,843 7 Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellant also argues that Chouno “teaches tracking the movement of a tracking a point in order to track the movement of moving object (i.e. the heart) in medical image data,” but does not teach “automatically adapting the point of intersection of the three 2D view planes over time along the trajectory of the single point of interest” as claimed. Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis omitted). This argument does not undermine the Examiner’s showing. Specifically, this argument does not address the Examiner’s finding that Chouno teaches determining trajectory of the tracking point within the image sequence by tracking the position of distinctive points over time. See Final Act. 17 (citing Chouno ¶¶ 37-38, 40-41, 54-57, 67-68). For example, we agree that Chouno’s tracking process determining a tracking result teaches determining trajectory of the tracking point as claimed, and that Chouno’s using a template of the previous frame for finding a small region most similar to the template in the current frame to be the tracking result teaches tracking the position of distinctive points over time. Appellant also argues that “the Office Action merely discusses the difference between the prior art references and the individual elements of the claims providing conclusory statements as to why a person of skill in the art may have been motivated to combine the multiple references to find a teaching for a particular element of the claim.” Appeal Br. 10. Specifically, Appellant argues that the “Office Action fails to provide an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness of the claimed invention” and rather merely “provides a Appeal 2021-000171 Application 15/116,843 8 conclusory statement as why a person of skill in the art would have, purportedly, been motivated to combine the two references to arrive at that particular element, or portion thereof, of the claimed invention.” Id. at 12. As an example, Appellant argues that it is unclear how the teachings of Chouno which pertains to an improved technique for tracking points in a moving organ in 2D image frames are helpful or would achieve a purported ‘improved efficiency for observing a characteristic of a structure using an image’ in the invention of Kutsuna, which concerns itself with ensuring that all consecutive slices in a volume that are associated with a particular diagnostic reading are viewed by the clinician to ensure a proper diagnostic check. Id. at 12-13. This argument does not undermine the Examiner’s showing. Kutsuna is generally directed towards “detect[ing] a position of a characteristic local structure of a human body from the medical image.” Kutsuna, Abstract. The Examiner finds the combination of Kutsuna, Pal, Tsujita, and Chouno is obvious “in order to provide an improved efficiency for observing a characteristic of a structure using an image.” Final Act. 18-19 (citing Chouno ¶¶ 9-11, 15). Appellant’s argument does not persuasively explain why it is unclear how Chouno’s tracking points in medical images would improve Kutsuna’s analysis of a medical image to detect a local structure. Furthermore, our reviewing court held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Appeal 2021-000171 Application 15/116,843 9 Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Dystar held “that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.” Id. Here, the Examiner cites Chouno for providing a suggestion to combine the references. Final Act. 19 (citing Chouno ¶¶ 9-11, 15). Cited paragraph 10 of Chouno discloses “provid[ing] a medical diagnostic imaging apparatus that can accurately track motions of a moving organ that moves periodically over a plurality of periods.” Chouno ¶ 10. However, consistent with Dystar, even absent this suggestion in Chouno, Dystar indicates that an implicit technology-independent motivation to combine exists to improve upon the efficiency of the analysis method, specifically by accurately analyzing medical images automatically. In summary, Appellant does not persuasively explain how the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Kutsuna, Pal, Tsujita, and Chouno teaches or suggests “determin[ing] a trajectory of the single point of interest within the 3D image sequence . . . by tracking a position of the one or more distinctive points in the 3D image sequence over time, wherein the trajectory is a displacement of the single point of interest over time” and “automatically adapting the point of intersection of the three 2D view planes over time along the trajectory of the single point of interest” as recited in claim 1. Based on the foregoing discussion, Appellant does not show error in the Examiner’s findings and determination of the obviousness of claim 1. Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s findings and determination of the obviousness of independent claims 14 and 15, or dependent claims 2-7, Appeal 2021-000171 Application 15/116,843 10 10, and 11, separately from claim 1. See Appeal Br. 13. Accordingly, claims 2-7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 fall with claim 1. VI. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7, 10, 11, 14, and 15 under § 103. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-7, 11, 14, 15 103 Kutsuna, Pal, Tsujita, Chouno 1-7, 11, 14, 15 10 103 Kutsuna, Pal, Tsujita, Chouno, Somphone 10 Overall Outcome 1-7, 10, 11, 14, 15 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