DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 4/22/26. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18 are cancelled. Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 19-24 are pending.
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, 5-8, 12-15, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 5-7, and 22 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 8, 12-14, and 23 are directed to one or more computer readable non-transitory storage media (i.e., a machine), and claims 15, 19-21, and 24 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 19-24 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts.
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1) A method of labeling a vessel in a medical image record, comprising: receiving, by one or more computing devices, the medical image record, the medical image record including a camera angle, and wherein the medical image record comprises a live video including an angiogram of a heart having a plurality of blood vessels visible due to an x-ray opaque dye flushed into the plurality of blood vessels; analyzing, by the one or more computing devices, the medical image record to locate and identify one or more vessels of the plurality of blood vessels, wherein analyzing the medical image record is based on edge detection, one or more anatomical landmarks in the medical image record, and the camera angle; retrieving, by the one or more computing devices, third-party information comprising hemodynamic system data; identifying, by the one or more computing devices, a region of interest associated with at least one of the one or more vessels based on the third-party information comprising hemodynamic system data, a shape change of the at least one of the one or more vessels and using one or more processors to perform edge detection to identify an abrupt stop in a contrast material thereby indicating the contrast material cannot flow past a block of the at least one of the one or more vessels; displaying, on a graphical user interface ("GUI") of the one or more computing devices, the medical image record; labeling, on the GUI of the one or more computing devices, at least one of the one or more vessels with a label, wherein the label comprises an abbreviation associated with the at least one of the one or more vessels; annotating, on the GUI of the one or more computing devices, the region of interest with an annotation associated with the region of interest; and saving the label associated with at least one of the one or more vessels and the annotation associated with the region of interest as a DICOM Secondary Capture Object.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “a mental process” because receiving a medical image record, analyzing the record, retrieving third-party information, and identifying a region of interest associated with at least one of the one or more vessels based on the third-party information comprising hemodynamic system data, a shape change of the at least one of the one or more vessels and identify an abrupt stop in a contrast material thereby indicating the contrast material cannot flow past a block of the at least one of the one or more vessels amount to observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind and with pen and paper. The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations regarding displaying the record, labeling at least one of the one or more vessels with a label and annotating the region of interest with an annotation, and saving the label and annotation constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity” because the limitations amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), at the currently claimed high level of generality.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting one or more computing devices, one or more computer readable non-transitory storage media embodying software, one or more processors, a graphical user interface, and a memory used to perform the limitations, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind or from being certain methods of organizing human activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and “certain methods of organizing human activity” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the one or more computing devices, one or more computer readable non-transitory storage media embodying software, one or more processors, graphical user interface, and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving data, analyzing data, retrieving data, identifying data, displaying data, labeling and annotating, and saving data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element of “using the one or more processors to perform edge detection” does not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-24 are ultimately dependent from Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 and include all the limitations of Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15. Therefore, claim(s) 5-7, 12-14, and 19-24 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-24 describe further limitations regarding a pathology, wherein the annotation comprises a marker, retrieving additional information, types of third-party information, and wherein identifying the region of interest is further based on at least one of the vessel segment quantified data, the vessel width, the vessel dominance, the lesion detection, the percent stenosis, the lesion length, the calcification, the presence of the graft, and the presence of the stent. These are all just further describing the abstract ideas recited in claims 1, 8, and 15, without adding significantly more.
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, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations directed to receiving the medical image record/live video including an angiogram by one or more computing devices, saving the label, edge detection, and the one or more computing devices retrieving data, all of which the Examiner submits merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea or are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality), the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network, storing and retrieving information in memory, and performing repetitive calculations. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding the limitation involving “a DICOM Secondary Capture Object” in the independent claims, the following State of the Art Publication demonstrates the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional elements: See Kopylov (US 2018/0239867 A1) which discloses that DICOM-based systems are conventional and generating conventional DICOM objects (para. 365, 439, and 451 of Kopylov).
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 19-24 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 4/22/26.
(1) Applicant argues that claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to patentable subject matter. Claims 5-8, 12-15, and 19-24 are directed to patentable subject matter for at least the same reasons noted above with regard to claims 1, 8 and 15. Applicant therefore respectfully requests the Examiner to withdraw this rejection and allow all pending claims.
(A) As per the first argument, see 101 rejection above. The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations in the 101 rejection above constitute “a mental process” because receiving a medical image record, analyzing the record, retrieving third-party information, and identifying a region of interest associated with at least one of the one or more vessels based on the third-party information comprising hemodynamic system data, a shape change of the at least one of the one or more vessels and identify an abrupt stop in a contrast material thereby indicating the contrast material cannot flow past a block of the at least one of the one or more vessels amount to observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind and with pen and paper. The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations regarding displaying the record, labeling at least one of the one or more vessels with a label and annotating the region of interest with an annotation, and saving the label and annotation constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity” because the limitations amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), at the currently claimed high level of generality. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the one or more computing devices, one or more computer readable non-transitory storage media embodying software, one or more processors, graphical user interface, and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving data, analyzing data, retrieving data, identifying data, displaying data, labeling and annotating, and saving data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element of “using the one or more processors to perform edge detection” does not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Regarding Example 37, the claims of this application are not analogous to claim 2 of Example 37 and the arguments are therefore not persuasive. Note that Example 37’s claim 2 was eligible because it did not recite a judicial exception. Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because it is unclear from the language of Applicant’s claims how “labeling” provides an “improvement” to technology since the claims lack detail on how the label is generated.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENA NAJARIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am-6 pm.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571)270-1813. 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.
/LENA NAJARIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights