Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-17, 21-27, 30-32, 35-37 has been reviewed and are addressed below. Claim 3, 7, 10, 14, 18-20, 28-29, 33-34, 38 has been cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2-23-26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
With respect to applicant’s amendments filed on 2-23-26, they have been entered and are addressed below.
Applicant argues the claims do not involve the alleged abstract idea, require a transformation and contains significant extra solution activity and reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology thus not directed to the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Independent claim 1, 13, and 15 recite, “assigning a probability value for a negative finding to the medical imaging data set the probability value being based on the image data set”, “determining whether the probability value is greater or less than a first threshold value”, “visualizing a first medical imaging data set for performing an analysis on the first medical imaging data set, the visualizing being performed in response to determining the first probability value assigned to the first medical imaging data set is less than the first threshold value and the first medical imaging data set being among the plurality of medical imaging data sets”, “performing an analysis on the first medical data set….”, “providing a second medical imaging data set for at least one storing the second medical imaging data set or creating a report data...in response to determinizing the first probability assigned….”, falls under which falls under the umbrella of certain methods of organizing human activity since it falls under social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions this is data gathering and additionally mental process by performing an analysis on the data gathered then presenting the analyzed data.
Applicant argues that the claims improve the technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements do not improve the technology, rather it is used to execute the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the amendment claims overcome the rejection. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments are from the dependent claims 38 rolled into the independent claim which was already affirmed by the board previously.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-17, 21-27, 30-32, 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-17, 21-27, 30-32, 35-37 are drawn to a system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claim 1, 13, and 15 recite, “assigning a probability value for a negative finding to the medical imaging data set the probability value being based on the image data set configured to project images into a lower dimensional space that is robust to noise and discriminant for disease”, “determining whether the probability value is greater or less than a first threshold value”, “visualizing a first medical imaging data set for performing an analysis on the first medical imaging data set, the visualizing being performed in response to determining the first probability value assigned to the first medical imaging data set is less than the first threshold value and the first medical imaging data set being among the plurality of medical imaging data sets”, “performing an analysis on the first medical data set….”, “providing a second medical imaging data set for at least one storing the second medical imaging data set or creating a report data...in response to determinizing the first probability assigned….”.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally the steps falls under “Mental Process” as well. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including a “medical imaging device”, “processor”, “non-transitory computer readable medium”, “computer program product”, “output device”, “device for storing”, “artificial intelligence”, “machine learning”, “CT device”, “display screen or printer” which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “processor” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims recite additional elements “recording and reconstructing by a medical imaging device a plurality of medical imaging data sets”, “performing operations for each respective medical imaging data set among a plurality of medical imaging data sets, the operations including”, “obtained by inputting the trained artificial network being trained to identify correlations between reference medical imaging data sets and corresponding probabilities for negative findings associated with the reference medical imaging data sets”, “storing the respective medical imaging device” which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed receiving limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of determining a risk score of patient and scheduling an appointment for the patient based on rank. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
Paragraph 47 states that "the term "device for storing" preferably describes a memory device used for storing the recorded medical imaging data sets e.g. a digital storage medium such as a hard disc, SD-card, which may be part of a computer or cloud. Preferably, the medical imaging data sets being transferred directly to the device for storing by the control unit are labelled with a standard phrase for identifying them. Furthermore, it is thinkable that the output device and the device for storing the medical imaging data set are integrated into a common structure, such as a workstation, or the device for storing the medical imaging data sets is incorporated into a server or a system of servers, whereas the output device is included in a workstation or the medical imaging device”.
Paragraph 46 states that “term "output device" is preferably generic for a device being configured for presenting or depicting a visualisation of the medical imaging data set. For example, the output device is a screen depicting a visualisation of the medical imaging data set or a printing device for printing a visualisation of the medical imaging data set, for example on a sheet. In other words: the output device presents the medical imaging data set in a suitable way for analysing the medical imaging data set in detail by an operator or a clinician”.
Paragraph 3 recites “in general, medical imaging data sets are recorded and reconstructed by medical imaging devices, such as an X-ray scanner, computer tomography (CT) scanner, magnetic resonance tomography (MRT) scanner or ultrasound scanner, for example”.
The claims recite additional elements “performing operations for each respective medical imaging data set among a plurality of medical imaging data sets, the operations including”, “obtained by inputting the trained artificial network being trained to identify correlations between reference medical imaging data sets and corresponding probabilities for negative findings associated with the reference medical imaging data sets”, “storing the respective medical imaging device” which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed receiving limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of determining a risk score of patient and scheduling an appointment for the patient based on rank. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 16-17, 21-27, 30-32, 37-37 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claims 35 and 36 further recite that wherein the recording comprises recording each of the plurality of medical imaging data which is an extra solution activity of storing data. The steps of producing by the medical imaging device, an x-ray beam, magnetic field or sound wave is an extra solution activity to capture the medical image, which does not overcome the identified abstract idea. The step of detecting on of x-ray attenuation data…., nuclear spins of the object…, or reflective sound wave…. are data gathering steps that are extra solution activities. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights