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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous objection, this is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Regarding the arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that the claims as a whole are not directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. Examiner asserts that as analyzed in the Step 2A Prong One section of the 101 rejection as reproduced in this Office Action, the claims recite, as a whole, an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. It is noted that indeed the examples of In re Marco Guldenaar Holdings BV, In re Brown, Bliski v. Kappos do not align perfectly with the claims; the Examiner never demonstrated that these particular examples are appropriate for the claimed invention. However, examples such as In re Meyer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)) demonstrates managing personal behavior/interactions. This example is relatively similar to the claimed invention, in that the claim, as noted in the rejection below, recites abstract limitations that are followed when performing the action of providing assistance during a medical imaging procedure. Additionally, the elements of the claimed invention including the AI component and generally automating the process related to the analysis of the feeds and providing assistance for example recites mere computer implementation and have been analyzed under the Step 2A Prong Two section of the rejection.
Applicant further argues that the elements of the independent claim integrate the exception into a practical application by improving the current methods of monitoring medical imaging examination workflows for providing assistance during a medical imaging examination. Examiner asserts that monitoring medical imaging examination workflows for providing assistance during an imaging examination recites an improvement to the abstract idea, not a technical improvement. The decision from Appeal 2023003769 for example recites an invention for aiding a specific medical procedure, whereas the instant application recites monitoring a non-specific medical imaging procedure workflow to provide assistance. Using generic “AI components” and generically automating steps to perform analysis for reducing operator error, monitoring multiple rooms at the same time, better analyzing events of patients and reducing delays is from the result of merely automating the process of monitoring medical imaging procedures and would not recite a technical improvement.
Applicant further argues that Example 42 of the USPTO Eligibility Examples is directed to subject matter that has similarities to the claims of the present application. Applicant argues that Example 42 recites an example where limitations of claim 1 were analyzed in error as abstract elements, however Examiner asserts that it is not clear how the limitations of Example 47 including converting information into a standardized format are similar to that of the instant application. In the instant applicant, steps of “detecting” at least one object, “tracking” a workflow, “detecting” an event, “determining” a modification of a workflow are a part of the abstract idea as noted in the rejection and the use of the AI component and automation are insignificant computer implementations. Again, these steps are not for the improvement to a technology, as the generic AI component and automatization of steps recites mere computer implementation.
Applicant further argues that similar to Diehr, the claimed invention provides a particular computerized modification to a process to improve a technical field. Examiner asserts that as noted in the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis of the 101 rejection, the generic additional elements are not used as a “particular” computerized modification, and the result of reducing delays or suboptimal examination results is an improvement to an abstract process, not a technology improvement, see MPEP 2106.05(f), specifically” "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015)” and See MPEP 2106.05(a)II, particularly “Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”.
Regarding the arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 USC 102, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that there is no disclosure in Divine for detecting an object that indicates a need for assistance. Examiner asserts that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, that [0070] of Divine describes the use of image recognition of objects that are used for procedure characterization, and then [0076] describes using the procedure characterization component (which includes the image recognition input of the objects), deviations to the protocol of the procedure can be detected by the system by detecting actions of the user, and therefore describes the detecting an object that indicates a need for assistance.
Applicant further argues that Divine does not teach of a system that maps a detected object to a detected event for the modification of the workflow. Examiner further asserts that [0082] describes the use of the procedure assessment component for generating corrective feedback, where the procedure assessment component is further described in [0069] which uses descriptive information including objects associated with a procedure as described in [0069]. Therefore, under BRI and the generality of the term “mapping” in the claim, it can be interpreted as Divine teaches “determining a modification of the workflow of the medical imaging examination based on mapping the detected at least one object to the detected event”.
Regarding the arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103, the Examiner agrees and therefore the rejection of claims 4 and 13 under 35 USC 103 is withdrawn.
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, 4-16, 18, 20-22 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
It is appropriate for the Examiner to determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test as recited in the following Steps: 1, 2A, and 2B, see MPEP 2106(III.).
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 1:
First, the Examiner is to establish whether the claim falls within any statutory category including a process, a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, see MPEP 2106.03(II.) and MPEP 2106.03(I).
Claim 20 is related to a system. Claims 1, 4-11 and 21 are related to “non-transitory” processor readable media storing instructions and claims 12-16, 18 and 22 recite a method. Accordingly, these claims are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong One:
Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test demonstrates whether a clam is directed to a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(I.). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, where Prong One establishes the judicial exception. Regarding Prong One of 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) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes, see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(1.) and 2106.04(a)(2).
The independent claims recite at least one abstract idea.
Regarding claim 1:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions for providing assistance during a medical imaging examination, the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
acquire video and audio feeds of the medical imaging examination and analyze video of the video and audio feeds using an artificial intelligence (AI) component including detecting at least one object indicating a need for assistance associated with the medical imaging examination using the AI component;
track a workflow of the medical imaging examination based on the acquired video and audio feeds;
detect an event related to the tracked workflow of the medical imaging examination based on analysis of the video and audio feeds using the AI component;
determining a modification of the workflow of the medical imaging examination based on mapping the detected at least one object to the detected event; and
automatically execute the modification to provide assistance during the medical imaging examination.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing interactions between people as the following abstract limitations are related to providing assistance during a medical imaging examination:
“Analyze” the video and audio feeds which includes detecting at least one object indicating a need for assistance associated with the medical imaging examination, which is an abstract limitation related to observations from the video and audio feeds,
“Track” a workflow of the medical imaging examination based at least on the acquired video and audio feeds, which is an abstract limitation related to an observation and analysis of the acquired data for a workflow of the procedure,
“Detect” an event related to the tracked workflow of the medical imaging examination based on the analysis of the video and audio feeds, which is an abstract limitation of an observation and analysis of an event in the audio and video feeds based on the previous, abstract tracked workflow,
“Determining” a modification of the workflow of the medical imaging examination based on mapping the detected at least one object to the detected event, where the modification is used to provide assistance during the medical imaging examination, which is an abstract limitation related to a judgement of a modification to be made to the workflow based on the previously detected event by using an abstract process of mapping the object to the event; this is the step for providing of assistance during the medical imaging examination.
The claim limitations as a whole recite steps for providing assistance during a medical imaging examination, and therefore recite managing interactions between people. The limitations are abstract steps for providing assistance to another individual for an imaging examination, and thus is a certain method of organizing human activity as described.
Claims 12 and 20 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., processor) and will be discussed in further detail below.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fails to make the abstract idea any less abstract as noted below:
Claim 18 recites further abstract limitations related to the analysis of the feed by detecting objects, which further describes the abstract idea. Claims 4 and 13 recite further abstract limitations related to the detection of the object being a wheelchair and the determined modification being a patient transport assistance request, thus further describing the abstract idea. Claims 5 and 14 recite further abstract limitations related to the detected object including the subject and a detected event being a patient characteristic and further the determined modification including changing a medical imaging device setting based on the characteristic and where the imaging device is used to perform the examination, thus further describing the abstract idea. Claims 6 and 15 recite further abstract limitations of the detected event including patient distress and the determined modification including a patient assistance request that is to be sent to the local operator performing the examination, thus further describing the abstract idea. Claims 7 and 16 recite further abstract limitations related to the detected event being an event related to operation of the contrast injector and the determined modification including instruction for changing the setting of the injector, thus further describing the abstract idea. Claim 8 recites abstract limitation of assessing effectiveness of the modification in remediating the detected event, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 11 recites further abstract limitation related to “displaying” or showing/teaching an indication of the modification to the local operator performing the examination, thus further describing the abstract idea. Claims 21 and 22 recite abstract limitations of “providing” a natural language pathway for verbal and/or textual communication between the remote expert and the local operator during the medical imaging examination, which is an abstract limitation related to a communication of information between individuals and further describes the abstract idea.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: 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 integrates 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 exceptions into a “practical application,” see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(2.) and 2106.04(d)(I.).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
Regarding claim 1:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions for providing assistance during a medical imaging examination, the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
acquire video and audio feeds of the medical imaging examination and analyze video of the video and audio feeds using an artificial intelligence (AI) component (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) including detecting at least one object indicating a need for assistance associated with the medical imaging examination using the AI component;
track a workflow of the medical imaging examination based on the acquired video and audio feeds;
detect an event related to the tracked workflow of the medical imaging examination based on analysis of the video and audio feeds using the AI component;
determining a modification of the workflow of the medical imaging examination based on mapping the detected at least one object to the detected event; and
automatically execute the modification (merely post solution activity as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.) to provide assistance during the medical imaging examination.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by at least one electronic processor, using an artificial intelligence (Al) component, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0038] of Applicant’s Specification recites the use of the overall generic computing system to carry out steps of the method using non-transitory storage medium and use of generic processors. [0060] recites the use of generic AI components to perform steps of the method. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components such as computer implemented models with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Claim 12 recites similar additional elements as claim 1 that fall under the analysis of additional elements as recited in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the method that is interpreted to be a computer-implemented method that is performed using generic computing components as described in [0039, 0041].
Regarding the additional limitation of acquire video and audio feeds of the medical imaging examination, this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that these additional limitations merely add insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). [0045, 0052, 0059] of Applicant’s Specification recites the steps for gathering the video and audio feeds of the examination, however this step is only used for the insignificant data gathering steps of the pre-solution activity. Claim 12 recites similar additional elements related to pre-solution activity as claim 1 that fall under the analysis of additional elements as recited in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Regarding the additional limitation of automatically executing the modification, this is merely post-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds extra-solution activity of insignificant application to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least on abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). [0063, 0064] of Applicant’s Specification recites the automatic nature of executing a modification, however these are merely steps of outputting the determined modifications without a practical application, and is thus insignificant post-solution activity. Claim 12 recites similar additional elements related to post-solution activity as claim 1 that fall under the analysis of additional elements as recited in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Regarding claim 20:
An apparatus for providing assistance during a medical imaging examination, the apparatus comprising:
a camera and a microphone disposed in the medical imaging bay (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.); and
at least one processor configured to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
acquire video and audio feeds of the medical imaging examination using the camera and the microphone in the medical imaging bay (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.);
analyze video of the video and audio feeds using an artificial intelligence (AI) component (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) including detecting at least one object indicating a need for assistance associated with the medical imaging examination using the AI component;
track a workflow of the medical imaging examination based on the acquired video and audio feeds;
detect an event related to the tracked workflow of the medical imaging examination based on analysis of the video and audio feeds using the Al component;
determine a modification of the workflow of the medical imaging examination based on mapping the detected at least one object to the detected event; and
automatically execute the modification (merely post solution activity as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.) to provide the assistance during the medical imaging examination.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the overall apparatus with the use of a processor to carry out steps and the use of an artificial intelligence (AI) component, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0032, 0038] of Applicant’s Specification recites the use of the overall, generic computing apparatus and the use of a generic processor to carry out steps of the method. [0060] recites the use of generic AI components to perform parts of the method. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Regarding the additional limitations of the use of a camera and a microphone disposed in the medical imaging bay to acquire video and audio feeds of the medical imaging examination, these are merely pre-solution activities. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). [0045, 0052, 0059] of Applicant’s Specification recites the steps for gathering the video and audio feeds of the examination using the microphone and camera, however the use of this hardware for this step is only used for the mere insignificant data gathering steps of the pre-solution activity.
Regarding the additional limitation of automatically executing the modification, this is merely post-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds extra-solution activity of insignificant application to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least on abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). [0063, 0064] of Applicant’s Specification recites the automatic nature of executing a modification, however these are merely steps of outputting the determined modifications without a practical application, and is thus insignificant post-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional 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 provide assistance during a medical imaging examination, 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 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b).
For these reasons, the independent claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set below:
Claim 18 recites further additional elements of further describing the gathered data as acquiring video, thus further describing the insignificant pre solution activity. Claims 4 and 13 recite further additional elements related to first determining the modification and then executing the modification automatically by merely transmitting the request thereafter as post-solution activity, thus further describing the insignificant application. Claims 5 and 14 recite further additional elements related to first determining the modification and then executing the modification automatically by merely displaying the recommendation of changing the settings as post-solution activity, thus further describing the insignificant application. Claims 6 and 15 recite further additional elements related to first determining the modification and then executing the modification by merely transmitting the request to the operator thereafter as post-solution activity, thus further describing the insignificant application. Claims 7 and 16 recite further additional elements related to further describing the acquired video and audio feeds as including video of contrast injector used in the examination, further describing the insignificant pre-solution activity; and first determining the modification and then executing the modification by merely displaying it thereafter as post-solution activity, thus further describing the insignificant application. Claim 8 recites further additional elements related to first the “automated” nature of the analysis, which recites mere computer implementation, and second the AI component and assessing the effectiveness where it is to update the model, however does not recite specific configuration of the model to show a technology improvement, thus further describing the mere computer implementation. Claims 9 and 10 recite further additional elements of the insignificant pre-solution activity without providing a particular application. Claim 11 recites the abstract limitation related to displaying an indication being carried out by the additional element of the electronic processing device without a technology improvement, thus further describing the mere computer implementation. Claims 21 and 22 recite additional elements including displaying the video at the generic remote operable by a person providing assistance, and generic use of mirroring of a screen, and where the “communication pathway” further requires the use of a generic remote connection between devices; these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, the independent 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 claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see additionally MPEP 2106.05(II.). Further, it may need to be established, when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, that the additional elements recite well understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claims 1 and 12:
Regarding the additional limitations of A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by at least one electronic processor, using an artificial intelligence (Al) component, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0038] of Applicant’s Specification recites the use of the overall generic computing system to carry out steps of the method using non-transitory storage medium and use of generic processors. [0060] recites the use of generic AI components to perform steps of the method. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components such as computer implemented models with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 12 recites similar additional elements as claim 1 that fall under the analysis of additional elements as recited in MPEP § 2106.05(f), including the method that is interpreted to be a computer-implemented method that is performed using generic computing components as described in [0039, 0041].
Regarding the additional limitation of acquire video and audio feeds of the medical imaging examination, this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that these additional limitations merely add insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data… buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”). [0045, 0052, 0059] of Applicant’s Specification recites the steps for gathering the video and audio feeds of the examination, however this step is only used for the insignificant data gathering steps of the pre-solution activity. Use of a network to transmit the imaging and audio data feeds as described in [0036] recites well understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Claim 12 recites similar additional elements related to pre-solution activity as claim 1 that fall under the analysis of additional elements as recited in MPEP § 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding the additional limitation of automatically executing the modification, this is merely post-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds extra-solution activity of insignificant application to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least on abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data… buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”). [0063, 0064] of Applicant’s Specification recites the automatic nature of executing a modification, however these are merely steps of outputting the determined modifications without a practical application, and is thus insignificant post-solution activity. The use of a network to transmit the instructions for the modification as recited in [0064] for example recites well understood, routine, and conventional activities. Claim 12 recites similar additional elements related to post-solution activity as claim 1 that fall under the analysis of additional elements as recited in MPEP § 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 20:
Regarding the additional limitations of the overall apparatus with the use of a processor to carry out steps and the use of an artificial intelligence (AI) component, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0032, 0038] of Applicant’s Specification recites the use of the overall, generic computing apparatus and the use of a generic processor to carry out steps of the method. [0060] recites the use of generic AI components to perform parts of the method. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding the additional limitations of the use of a camera and a microphone disposed in the medical imaging bay to acquire video and audio feeds of the medical imaging examination, these are merely pre-solution activities. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data… buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”). [0045, 0052, 0059] of Applicant’s Specification recites the steps for gathering the video and audio feeds of the examination using the microphone and camera, however the use of this hardware for this step is only used for the mere insignificant data gathering steps of the pre-solution activity. Use of a network to transmit the imaging and audio data feeds as described in [0036] recites well understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Regarding the additional limitation of automatically executing the modification, this is merely post-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds extra-solution activity of insignificant application to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least on abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data… buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”). [0063, 0064] of Applicant’s Specification recites the automatic nature of executing a modification, however these are merely steps of outputting the determined modifications without a practical application, and is thus insignificant post-solution activity. The use of a network to transmit the instructions for the modification as recited in [0064] for example recites well understood, routine, and conventional activities.
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 exceptions 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.
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and therefore claims 1, 4-16, 18, 20-22 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-12, 14-16, 18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0247024 A1 to Divine et al. (“Divine”):
Regarding claim 1:
Divine teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions for providing assistance during a medical imaging examination, the instruction, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: ([0028]- system is used to improve human behavior during healthcare procedures (interpreted as providing assistance during a procedure). [0044]- overall system with processor described. [0060]- procedures that are tracked includes procedures that use imaging devices (interpreted as the system providing assistance during medical imaging examinations).)
acquire video and audio feeds of the medical imaging examination and analyze video of the video and audio feeds using an artificial intelligence (AI) component including detecting at least one object indicating a need for assistance associated with the medical imaging examination using the AI component; ([0030]- image and audio data is captured from the procedure. [0070]- use of recognition algorithms to identify objects related to the procedure when using the procedure characterization component. [0076]- using the procedure characterization component, deviations to the protocol of the procedure can be detected by the system by detecting actions of the user as further described in [0107] (interpreted as using an AI component to analyze the video and audio to detect an indication for a need for assistance during the imaging, where the deviations to the procedure protocol is interpreted as the object).)
track a workflow of the medical imaging examination based on the acquired video and audio feeds; ([0030]- based on the data, a specific type of procedure being performed by the healthcare professional is identified and further identifies respective actions and characteristics of the actions from the procedure from the audio and video (interpreted as tracking the workflow of the imaging procedure).)
detect an event related to the tracked workflow of the medical imaging examination based on analysis of the video and audio feeds using the Al component, ([0069]- descriptive parameters of the procedure is generated and events during the procedure can be identified and characterized as described in [0061] where the steps of the procedure are defined (defining steps interpreted as detecting events of the workflow of the procedure using an AI component based on video).)
determining a modification of the workflow of the medical imaging examination based on mapping the detected at least one object to the detected event; and ([0082]- system generates corrective feedback based on performance of the procedure when the user performs the procedure incorrectly by skipping a step of the procedure (corrective feedback interpreted as determining a modification of the workflow for the imaging based on mapping the detected at least on object to the detected event, where the determination of the performance is interpreted as mapping the detected object to the event).)
automatically execute the modification to provide the assistance during the medical imaging examination. ([0107]- if assistance is needed for the user, feedback is provided in real-time using augmented reality (AR) at the user’s device during the procedure as described in [0082] (interpreted as automatically executing the modification during the medical imaging examination).)
Claim 12 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5:
Divine teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Divine further teaches the detected object includes a subject of the imaging examination; the detected event includes a patient characteristic; ([0070] -image recognition can identify characteristics of a user such as facial expressions. [0059]- video feedback can be used to determine biometric feedback and can include physiological responses of the patient during the procedure.)
the determined modification includes changing at least one setting of a medical imaging device based on the patient characteristic, where the medical imaging device is used to perform the medical imaging examination, and the automatic executing of the modification includes one of (i) displaying on a display a recommendation of changing the at least one setting of the medical imaging device or (ii) automatically changing the at least one setting of the medical imaging device at a controller of the medical imaging device. ([0099]- feedback that is provided to the user can include changing the medical device. [0107]- if assistance is needed for the user, feedback is provided in real-time using augmented reality (AR) at the user’s device (interpreted as automatically executing the modification by displaying it to the user).)
Claim 14 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 5.
Regarding claim 6:
Divine teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Divine further teaches the detected event includes patient distress detected using the Al component applied to the video and/or audio feed; ([0059]- video feedback can be used to determine biometric feedback and can include physiological responses of the patient during the procedure.)
the determined modification of the workflow includes a patient assistance request; and the automatic executing of the modification includes electronically transmitting the patient assistance request to at least one of the local operator performing the medical imaging examination and/or a remote expert remotely monitoring the medical imaging examination. ([0075]- system provides feedback on how to interact with patients, for example (indicates patient assistance request is required). [0107]- if assistance is needed for the user, feedback is provided in real-time using augmented reality (AR) at the user’s device (indicates this request is transmitted to the local operator’s AR device for viewing).)
Claim 15 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 6.
Regarding claim 7:
Divine teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Divine further teaches the acquired video and/or audio feed includes video of a contrast injector used in the imaging examination, and the detected event includes an event related to operation of the contrast injector detected using the Al component applied to the video of the contrast injector, and ([0062]- feedback from needle insertion)
the determined modification includes changing at least one setting of the contrast injector, and the automatic executing of the modification includes one of (i) displaying on a display a recommendation of changing the at least one setting of the contrast injector or (ii) automatically changing the at least one setting of the contrast injector. ([0082]- system generates corrective feedback based on performance of the procedure (interpreted as determining a modification of the workflow for the imaging based on detected event).)
Claim 16 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 7.
Regarding claim 8:
Divine teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Divine further teaches wherein the method further comprises: automatically assessing an effectiveness of the automatic execution of the modification in remediating the detected event; and updating the Al component based on the automatically assessed effectiveness. ([0110]- machine learning for providing assistance is improved)
Regarding claim 9:
Divine teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Divine further teaches wherein the feed comprises a video feed acquired by a camera disposed in the medical imaging bay. ([0048]- cameras are used to capture the image data and can be included in the examination room (interpreted as the medical imaging bay).)
Regarding claim 10:
Divine teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Divine further teaches wherein the feed comprises an audio feed acquired by a microphone disposed in the medical imaging bay. ([0124]- microphone is used as an input device to capture recorded audio of the procedure.)
Regarding claim 11:
Divine teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Divine further teaches wherein the method further includes: displaying an indication of the modification on an electronic processing device operable by a local operator (LO) performing the medical imaging examination. ([0082]- system generates corrective feedback based on performance of the procedure (interpreted as determining a modification of the workflow for the imaging based on detected event). [0107]- if assistance is needed for the user, feedback is provided in real-time using augmented reality (AR) at the user’s device (interpreted as displaying an indication of a modification).)
Regarding claim 18:
Divine teaches all of the limitations of claim 12. Divine further teaches wherein the acquiring of video and/or audio feed includes acquiring video and the analysis of the video using the AI component includes detecting at least one object using the Al component. ([0070]- image recognition is used to identify objects during the procedure.)
Regarding claim 20:
Divine teaches an apparatus for providing assistance during a medical imaging examination, the apparatus comprising; (([0028]- system is used to improve human behavior during healthcare procedures (interpreted as providing assistance during a procedure). [0044]- overall system with processor described. [0060]- procedures that are tracked includes medical imaging procedures. [0063]- assistance can be provided to a user in a location of a hospital such as a medical bay in a facility (because of the assistance that can be provided for imaging procedures, it can be interpreted that the bay includes a medical imaging bay). [0121]- feedback is provided to a assistance viewer who is remote from the professional.)
a camera and a microphone disposed in the medical imaging bay; and ([0048]- cameras are used to capture the image data and can be included in the examination room (interpreted as the medical imaging bay). [0124]- microphone is used as an input device to capture recorded audio of the procedure.)
at least one processor configured to: acquire video and audio feeds of the medical imaging examination using the camera and the microphone in the medical imaging bay; ([0030]- image and audio data is captured from the procedure. [0177]- system use in a medical imaging bay.)
analyze video of the video and audio feeds using an artificial intelligence (AI) component including detecting at least one object indicating a need for assistance associated with the medical imaging examination using the AI component ([0030]- image and audio data is captured from the procedure. [0070]- use of recognition algorithms to identify objects related to the procedure when using the procedure characterization component. [0076]- using the procedure characterization component, deviations to the protocol of the procedure can be detected by the system by detecting actions of the user as further described in [0107] (interpreted as using an AI component to analyze the video and audio to detect an indication for a need for assistance, where the deviations to the procedure protocol is interpreted as the object).)
track a workflow of the medical imaging examination based on the acquired video and audio feeds; ([0030]- based on the data, a specific type of procedure being performed by the healthcare professional is identified and further identifies respective actions and characteristics of the actions from the procedure (interpreted as tracking the workflow of the imaging procedure).)
detect an event related to the tracked workflow of the medical imaging examination based on analysis of the video and audio feeds using the Al component; ([0069]- descriptive parameters of the procedure is generated and events during the procedure can be identified and characterized as described in [0061] where the steps of the procedure are defined (defining steps interpreted as detecting events of the workflow of the procedure using an AI component based on video).)
determine a modification of the workflow of the medical imaging examination based on mapping the detected at least one object to the detected event; and ([0082]- system generates corrective feedback based on performance of the procedure when the user performs the procedure incorrectly by skipping a step of the procedure (corrective feedback interpreted as determining a modification of the workflow for the imaging based on mapping the detected at least on object to the detected event, where the determination of the performance is interpreted as mapping the detected object to the event).)
automatically execute the modification to provide the assistance during the medical imaging examination. ([0107]- if assistance is needed for the user, feedback is provided in real-time using augmented reality (AR) at the user’s device during the procedure as described in [0082] (interpreted as automatically executing the modification during the medical imaging examination).)
Regarding claim 21:
Divine teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Divine further teaches: displaying the acquired video at a remote workstation operable by a person providing the assistance during the medical imaging examination; ([0121]- live visual feed of user performing the procedure (which includes imaging procedures) is captured and displayed to the remote user.)
mirroring a screen of an imaging device controller of the medical imaging device at the remote workstation; and ([0153]- window overlay of the imaging device in the procedure environment displaying the status of the imaging device in the display window (the overlay is interpreted as part of the screen of an imaging device controller of the imaging device). [0121]- during the remote assistance, a connection between the remote assistant and a device in the procedure environment can be made (this indicates that if a medical procedure involving an imaging device is being looked at with the device with the window overlay by the local operator, the remote operator can see exactly this point of view of the overlay which is interpreted to be the screen of the imaging device controller, indicating a mirroring of the screen of the imaging device).)
providing a natural language pathway for verbal and/or textual communication between a local operator performing the medical imaging examination and the person providing the assistance during the medical imaging examination. ([0121]- healthcare professional and remote assisting entity can communicate via a voice session (interpreted as providing a natural language pathway for verbal communication between the RE and LO).)
Claim 22 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 21.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS whose telephone number is (571)272-6719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Jason B Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. 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.
/CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3686
/JASON B DUNHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights