KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 15, 2021

2019006640 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 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. 15/520,094 04/19/2017 Liran GOSHEN 2014P00937WOUS 3126 24737 7590 03/15/2021 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 465 Columbus Avenue Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 EXAMINER HAUSMANN, MICHELLE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2661 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/15/2021 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 LIRAN GOSHEN Appeal 2019-006640 Application 15/520,094 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, 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, 5, 9–14, and 18–20. See Ans. 14. Claims 4, 6–8, and 15–17 are objected to for reciting allowable subject matter. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 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 2019-006640 Application 15/520,094 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “image visualization.” Spec. 1:2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: visually presenting image data in a main window of a display monitor, wherein the image data is processed with a first processing algorithm; identifying, with a processor, tissue of interest in the image data displayed in the main window; generating, with the processor, a sub-viewport for the tissue of interest by determining: a size of the sub-viewport; a shape of the sub-viewport; and an orientation of the sub-viewport; and visually presenting, with the processor, the sub-viewport over a sub-region of the image data in the main window based on the size, the shape, and the orientation. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Rice US 2005/0149877 A1 July 7, 2005 Lavi US 2010/0104160 A1 Apr. 29, 2010 Licato US 2010/0131885 A1 May 27, 2010 Cristescu US 2013/0088519 A1 Apr. 11, 2013 Abramoff US 2014/0035909 A1 Feb. 6, 2014 Appeal 2019-006640 Application 15/520,094 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1–3, 9–14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lavi and Rice. Final Act. 4–12.2 Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lavi, Rice, Cristescu, and Abramoff. Final Act. 14–15. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lavi, Rice, and Licato. Final Act. 15–16. OPINION The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–3, 9–14, 18, and 20 over Lavi and Rice The Examiner finds Lavi and Rice teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 4–8. The Examiner finds Lavi teaches most limitations of claim 1, but finds Lavi “do[es] not explicitly disclose determining an orientation of the sub-viewport.” Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds Rice teaches “determining a size of the sub-viewport, a shape of the sub-viewport, and an orientation of the sub-viewport.” Final Act. 8 (citing Rice ¶ 75); see also Rice ¶ 75 (“Thus, after the circle 165 is created, the size, shape, position and orientation of the circle 165 may be altered.”). The Examiner explains “Rice indicates ultimately determining an orientation in order to alter the orientation, which still discloses determining a final orientation, whether or not an initial orientation must first be determined.” Advisory Action 2. The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Lavi and Rice. Final Act. 8 (citing Lavi, Abstract, Rice, Fig. 6, ¶¶ 6, 74). 2 Claims 10 and 11 are not listed in the formal statement of the rejection on page 4 of the Final Action, but claims 10 and 11 are discussed on pages 10– 11 of the Final Action. Appeal 2019-006640 Application 15/520,094 4 Appellant presents the following principal argument: The orientation of the already generated and existing visually displayed ROI [(region of interest)] may be determined in order to alter the orientation, as purported by the Office, but altering an orientation of an already generated and existing visually displayed ROI does not reasonably disclose or suggest generating the ROI and then displaying the generated ROI, let alone based on the size, the shape and the orientation, at least because it already is generated and visually displayed. Appeal Br. 5. In response, the Examiner explains The Rice reference shows one would consider orientation as one feature that would be generally used to adjust the characteristics of a viewport, in this case with the generation and then adjustment and then generating the modified sub-viewport being performed iteratively. As the result of Rice is still generating a sub-viewport in a proper orientation in accordance with the tissue of interest, as the claims do not preclude generating iteratively, with modifications performed to better suit the displayed tissue, Rice teaches this feature of claim 1. Ans. 18. In reply, Appellant argues The subject claims require generating “a sub-viewport" and visually presenting “the sub-viewport.” Based on this antecedent basis, the visually presented sub-viewport is the generated sub-viewport and not some other sub-viewport such a modified sub-viewport generated iteratively before visual presentation. The subject claims preclude the purported “generating iteratively” scheme. That is, the above interpretation by the Office would require generating “a sub-viewport” with an orientation, generating “a modified viewport” with a different orientation, and visually presenting “the modified sub-viewport” with the different orientation. Reply Br. 2. Appeal 2019-006640 Application 15/520,094 5 We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Claim 1, in the key disputed limitation, recites “generating, with the processor, a sub-viewport for the tissue of interest by determining: a size of the sub-viewport; a shape of the sub-viewport; and an orientation of the sub- viewport.” We interpret claim 1 as requiring, as a part of generating a sub- viewport, determining an orientation of the sub-viewport. Rice discloses GUI 100 also allows a user to manipulate each ROI. The ROI currently being viewed is indicated to the user via highlights. Thus, after the circle 165 is created, the size, shape, position and orientation of the circle 165 may be altered. In one embodiment, clicking a pointer on circle 165 reshapes the ROI. Alternatively, clicking a pointer on a highlight 165a and dragging may reshape the ROI. Similarly, a user may change dimensions for ROI 2 or ROI 3 within window 101 by clicking on a comer feature of the ROI and dragging a side. Rice ¶ 75 (emphasis added); see also Rice ¶ 74 (“Create circle button 164 allows a user to create a circular or elliptical region of interest (ROI) 165 with one action on tool palette 102.”). Thus, Rice discloses generating a sub-viewport, then modifying an orientation of the generated sub-viewport. Rice ¶¶ 74, 75. Because Rice discloses modifying the orientation of the generated sub-viewport, we determine Rice’s generated sub-viewport has an initial orientation determined at the time of generation. Accordingly, we determine Rice teaches “generating, with the processor, a sub-viewport for the tissue of interest” (see Rice ¶ 74 (“create a circular or elliptical region of interest (ROI)”)) “by determining: a size of the sub-viewport; a shape of the sub- Appeal 2019-006640 Application 15/520,094 6 viewport; and an orientation of the sub-viewport” (Because the size, shape, and orientation of the ROI in Rice may be modified after generation (Rice ¶ 75), the ROI in Rice has a size, shape, and orientation determined upon generation.) as recited in claim 1. Further, contrary to Appellant’s arguments, we determine Rice’s modifying the size, shape, and orientation of the ROI (Rice ¶ 75) also teaches “generating, with the processor, a sub-viewport for the tissue of interest by determining: a size of the sub-viewport; a shape of the sub- viewport; and an orientation of the sub-viewport” as recited in claim 1 because Rice’s modifying the size, shape, and orientation of the ROI generates a (modified) sub-viewport that is subsequently visually presented. See Ans. 18. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 9–14, 18, and 20, which are not separately argued with particularity. See Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2–3. The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 5 over Lavi, Rice, Cristescu, and Abramoff Claim 5 depends from claim 4, and claim 4 is not rejected. See Ans. 14. We, therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5. The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 19 over Lavi, Rice, and Licato Appellant does not present particularized arguments with respect to claim 19. See Appeal Br. 7. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19. Appeal 2019-006640 Application 15/520,094 7 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 9–14, and 18–20 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 5 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 9–14, 18, 20 103 Lavi, Rice 1–3, 9–14, 18, 20 5 103 Lavi, Rice, Cristescu, Abramoff 5 19 103 Lavi, Rice, Licato 19 Overall Outcome 1–3, 9–14, 18–20 5 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-IN-PART