KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 14, 2022

2021003322 (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. 15/546,310 07/26/2017 JULIEN SENEGAS 2014P00978WOUS 1013 24737 7590 01/14/2022 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 1600 Summer Street 5th Floor Stamford, CT 06905 EXAMINER BYKHOVSKI, ALEXEI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3793 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): 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 JULIEN SENEGAS, DANIEL WIRTZ, SASCHA KRUEGER, VINCENT JEANNE, THIRUKUMARAN THANGARAJ KANAGASABAPATHI, JOERG SABCZYNSKI, and PETER FORTHMANN Appeal 2021-003322 Application 15/546,310 Technology Center 3700 Before JOHN C. KERINS, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. WOOD, 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 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to the 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 2021-003322 Application 15/546,310 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a camera system for automated measurement of patient biometric and physiological parameters for use in medical imaging. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A contact-free method of determining biometric parameters and physiological parameters of a subject of interest to be examined by a medical imaging system comprising an examination space for arranging the subject of interest within for an examination, and an examination table having an upper surface for supporting the subject of interest prior to and after the examination outside the examination space as well as while being arranged inside the examination space during the examination, the method comprising: taking at least one first picture of the subject of interest with a first digital camera prior to arranging the subject of interest within the examination space, wherein a first field of view of the first digital camera includes a total view of an upper surface of the examination table; determining at least one biometric parameter of the subject of interest in relation to the upper surface of the examination table using the at least one first picture taken by the first digital camera; taking at least one second picture of the subject of interest with a second digital camera after arranging the subject of interest within the examination space, wherein a second field of view of the second digital camera includes a region of the subject of interest that is related to the at least one determined biometric parameter of the subject of interest; identifying a subset of pixels of the at least one second picture taken by the second digital camera, using data indicative of the at least one determined biometric parameter of the subject of interest determined using the at least one first picture, that defines a region of interest from which at least one physiological parameter of the subject of interest is to be determined; Appeal 2021-003322 Application 15/546,310 3 taking a plurality of pictures of the region of the subject of interest with the second digital camera; and calculating the region of interest in pictures of the plurality of pictures for determining the at least one physiological parameter of the subject of interest during the examination. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). REFERENCES Name Reference Date Ahiska US 2010/0002071 A1 Jan. 7, 2010 Vija US 2013/0281818 A1 Oct. 24, 2013 Dresel US 2013/0342851 A1 Dec. 26, 2013 Haider US 2015/0087997 A1 Mar. 26, 2015 REJECTIONS2 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References 1, 2, 7, 8, 11-17, 20 102(a)(1) Dresel 3-5, 10, 19 103 Dresel, Haider 6, 18 103 Dresel, Vija 9 103 Dresel, Ahiska OPINION Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11-17, and 20-§ 102-Dresel Claims 1, 8, and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is drawn to a method of determining biometric parameters and physiological parameters of a subject 2 Appellant asserts in the Appeal Brief that only claims 1-6 and 8-10 are at issue, and that “claims 7 and 11-20 have been previously withdrawn.” Appeal Br. 2. We are not apprised of any evidence that claims 7 and 11-20 have been withdrawn, and in fact Appellant has reproduced these claims in the Appendix of the “Claims on Appeal.” Id. at 20-28. Therefore, we consider claims 1-20 to be before us in this appeal. Appeal 2021-003322 Application 15/546,310 4 of interest to be examined by a medical imaging system. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). Claim 8 is drawn to a camera system comprising, e.g., a controller configured to carry out the method steps recited in claim 1. Id. at 23-24. Claim 11 is drawn to a medical imaging system comprising, essentially, the camera system recited in claim 8. Id. at 24-25. Thus, as the parties apparently agree (see Appeal Br. 14-17; Ans. 11), claim 1 can be treated as representative of the claims subject to this rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In finding that Dresel anticipates claim 1, the Examiner specifically finds, inter alia, that Dresel’s first and second recording elements 1153 and 118 correspond to, respectively, the claimed first digital camera that takes at least a one first picture and the claimed second digital camera that takes at least one second picture; and Dresel’s teaching of determining the position of objects on the patient positioning device 106 corresponds to the claimed step of determining at least one biometric parameter of the subject of interest using the at least one first picture taken by the first digital camera. Final Act. 3-7 (citing Dresel ¶¶ 15, 27, 35-37, 43-47, Fig. 2). Appellant argues, inter alia, that Dresel does not teach identifying a subset of pixels based on “at least one first picture taken by a first camera taking pictures outside the examination space and at least one second picture taken by a second camera within the examination space.” Appeal Br. 12. Rather, according to Appellant, “in context, it appears that both of the at least two image recordings described in para. [0015] of Dresel et al. are taken by the same 3-D image data recording element (115 or 118) since they 3 Dresel also identifies the first recording element with reference number 116. Dresel ¶¶37, 38, 40, 41, 43. Appeal 2021-003322 Application 15/546,310 5 are intended, in part, to detect what may be minor movement (e.g., breathing, as asserted by the Final Office Action).” Id. Appellant further asserts that “it is not inherent that the image recordings made at different times, as disclosed by Dresel et al., would be recorded by different cameras (at different locations relative to the receiving region 104).” Id. The Examiner responds that “[e]ven if the images taken at different times that are used to determine a physiological parameter were to come from the same camera, the data used are indicative of a position of the object which is the at least one determined biometric parameter of the subject of interest determined using the at least one first picture.” Ans. 8-9. The Examiner also asserts that “comparing a position of the patient outside receiving region (examination space) and a position of the patient inside the receiving region is not in the claim.” Id. at 10. Appellant counters that the Examiner has not pointed to any disclosure by Dresel “of the second picture being taken after the subject is arranged within the examination space and the first picture being taken prior to the subject being arranged within the examination space, which is recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 7. Claim 1 requires taking at least one first picture with a first digital camera “prior to arranging the subject of interest within the examination space,” and then taking at least one second picture with a second digital camera “after arranging the subject of interest within the examination space.” Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). In other words, claim 1 requires taking a first picture of a subject with a first camera when the patient is outside the examination space, and then taking a second picture of the subject with a second camera when the subject is inside the examination Appeal 2021-003322 Application 15/546,310 6 space. The Examiner has not pointed us to any teaching in Dresel that corresponds to these limitations. Nor have we found any such teaching. For example, Dresel teaches taking “at least two image recordings” of a patient positioned on a patient positioning device, the two image recordings “recorded at different times.” Dresel ¶ 15. A “temporal change in a position of the [subject]” based on a comparison of the at least two images indicates movement of the subject. Id. Taking two images at different times does not mean that the two images are taken from different cameras. On the contrary, because the two images are compared with each other to detect movement between the two images, it is more likely that the two images are taken with the same camera. Dresel also indicates that the detection of movement is performed when the subject is “within the receiving region” (i.e., the examination space) (id. ¶ 27), which is contrary to the requirement that the first image be taken outside of the examination space. “Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference disclosure of each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as in the claim.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Because we are not persuaded that Dresel teaches every limitation of representative claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11-17, and 20 as anticipated by Dresel. Remaining Rejections The Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 3-6, 9, 10, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 rely on the Examiner’s finding that Dresel discloses all of the limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 11. Final Act. 25-35. Because we are not persuaded that Dresel discloses all of the limitations of Appeal 2021-003322 Application 15/546,310 7 the independent claims, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3-6, 9, 10, 18, and 19. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 7, 8, 11-17, 20 102 Dresel 1, 2, 7, 8, 11-17, 20 3-5, 10, 19 103 Dresel, Haider 3-5, 10, 19 6, 18 103 Dresel, Vija 6, 18 9 103 Dresel, Ahiska 9 Overall Outcome 1-20 REVERSED