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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 1/14/2026 in which claims 1 and 18-19 have been amended, claims 2-4 have been canceled. Thus, the claims 1 and 5-19 are pending in the application.
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 and 5-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of displaying lesion information without significantly more.
Claim 18 is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 18 recites a processor comprising one or more cores; a network circuit; and a memory, wherein the processor is configured to: determine to transmit a user interface to a user terminal through the network circuit, wherein the user interface displays lesion information for at least one of an uncertain lesion in which at least some regions included in medical data are not classified as one finding, or a certain lesion in which at least some regions included in the medical data are classified as one finding; and displays one or more findings related to the lesion information for the uncertain lesion, and a degree of uncertainty which is a probability that the uncertain lesion is classified into a corresponding finding in response to a user interaction with the lesion information wherein the uncertain lesion and the degree of uncertainty are determined based on the one or more findings and a score value corresponding to each of the one or more findings output based on the medical data using a diagnostic model, wherein the lesion information is information on a body part in which the at least one of the uncertain lesion or the certain lesion is detected, and the lesion information is displayed on the medical data, wherein the certain lesion and the uncertain lesion are displayed by different schemes, wherein the diagnostic model comprises an artificial neural network model configured to calculate score values corresponding to probabilities for a plurality of classes, wherein the diagnostic model is a model trained by using training data having medical data as an input, and having lesion information and finding included in the medical data as a label, and wherein the lesion information includes a position and a size of a lesion. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) describe the abstract idea of displaying lesion information, which correspond to a certain methods of organizing human activity. The additional limitations of a processor, one or more cores, a network circuit, a memory, a user interface, a user terminal, a diagnostic model, and an artificial neural network model do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 18 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a processor, one or more cores, a network circuit, a memory, a user interface, a user terminal, a diagnostic model, and an artificial neural network model result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a processor, one or more cores, a network circuit, a memory, a user interface, a user terminal, a diagnostic model, and an artificial neural network model are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention by applying the exception using a generic computer element (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites the additional elements of a processor, one or more cores, a network circuit, a memory, a user interface, a user terminal, a diagnostic model, and an artificial neural network model are recited at a high level of generality in that it result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these elements provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be presented for other independent claims 1 and 19 and hence these claims are rejected on similar grounds as claim 18.
Dependent claims 5-17 further define the abstract idea that is present in the independent claim 1, thus correspond to a certain method of organizing human activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 1 and 5-19 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed dated 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 5-19 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that the amended claim 1 does not correspond to abstract ideas such as simple ‘mental process’ or ‘mathematical concepts’, but corresponds to a series of specific implementation steps performed by a computing device, including data input, calculation, analysis, and visual transformation. In particular, the claimed diagnostic model includes an artificial neural network (e.g., CNN, etc.) model trained based on ‘training data’, and the presence of a computing device is essential for driving such a neural network model.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claim is initially evaluated in the absence of additional elements to determine if the claim recites an abstract idea. The additional elements are then considered to determine if the additional elements restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. In this case, it was determined that the claim recites an abstract idea of displaying lesion information. The additional elements do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, even if the claim recites computing device and an artificial neural network , the claim still recites an abstract idea. The additional elements of a computing device and an artificial neural network are further considered under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B to determine if the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to add significantly more. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Applicant further states that amended claim 1 specifies a configuration of identifying mechanical uncertainty by analyzing statistical distributions such as variance of different of score values calculated by the artificial neural network, and visualizing and displaying the certain lesion and the uncertain lesion in different schemes on the user interface accordingly. This configuration does not simply show diagnostic results performed by a physician, but provides a function through the UI that quantifies the reliability of mechanical judgment by analyzing calculation results (subtle distribution of score values) difficult for humans to intuitively perceive, and calls attention to ambiguous lesions that a reader might miss by transforming certain lesions and uncertain lesions into visually distinct graphic elements. This generates an effect of increasing the user’s diagnostic accuracy in the process of reading vast amounts of medical data. Therefore, the amended claim 1 of the present invention corresponds to a functional improvement of a computer interface, and thus corresponds to a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 of the MPEP guidelines.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional elements of an artificial neural network is recited at a high level of generality in that it simply amounts to applying the abstract idea. Analyzing data and calculating different score values and then displaying the data are abstract concepts and do not represent an improvement to technology. This does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. In fact, the specification does not describe a technical problem to which a technical solution is needed. If there is an improvement, it is to the abstract idea and not to technology.
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 RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights