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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that claim 1 does not constitute certain methods of organizing human activity. Examiner asserts that they do, see rejection below under Step 2A Prong One.
Applicant further argues that the additional limitations of claim 1 integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, in that “automatically executing the modification” recites the practical application. Examiner further asserts that in view of the current amendment, the “execution of the modification” recites the abstract idea of providing the assistance as noted in the rejection below under Step 2A Prong One. As noted in Step 2A Prong Two, the automated nature of the system to execute the modification and transmitting that information over a network to a remote expert recites the use of generic computing components and a generic network to transmit the information of the alert, which recites mere computer implementation of the abstract idea. Further, “establishing communication” with an expert that is remote recites the use of a network to establish a communication between the remote expert and patient, and therefore does not recite a technical improvement or practical application, see updated rejection below.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite an improvement to a technical field of medical imaging examinations. Examiner asserts that there is no indication of a specific technical improvement related to medical imaging, as the claims recite methods for detecting distress in a patient during the imaging procedure and establishing communications between individuals, which recites the abstract idea. Merely claiming the system performing the transmission of an alert of the patient assistance request when the patient is detected to be in distress and then establishing communication between the remote operator and patient is not specific technical improvement relating to improving medical imaging when a patient is in distress. Further, the use of an “AI component” for automated monitoring the video and audio during an imaging procedure to increase the efficiency/speed of the monitoring and aid the local operator using this generic computing component is also not an 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)” There is no indication that the communication network connection with video/audio devices and use of AI recite a “particular machine” to carry out the abstract idea as there is no particular integration of these components beyond mere computer implementation and insignificant pre-solution activity, and thus indicates there is no technology improvement nor practical application.
Applicant further argues that under Step 2B the claims recite significantly more than the judicial exception as the limitations are not well understood, routine, and conventional. Examiner further asserts that as noted above and below in the updated rejection, the claim does not recite a technical improvement in the field of medical imaging. Again, using AI and network communications in a generic manner to improve the automation and efficiency of the monitoring of patients for the local operator and communicating with the remote operator as claimed does not recite a technical field improvement, as using the internet to forward information such as the alert and communications to another device recites well understood, routine, and conventional activity as noted in the rejection below.
Regarding the arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 USC 102, Examiner agrees and therefore this rejection 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, 4-5, 7-14, 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, 4-5, 7-11 and 21 are related to “non-transitory” processor readable media storing instructions and claims 12-14, 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, wherein the detected at least one object includes patient distress unresolved by a local operator performing the medical imaging examination;
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, wherein the determined modification of the workflow includes a patient assistance request; and
in response to the detection of the unresolved patient distress by the local operator, automatically execute the modification to provide assistance during the medical imaging examination, wherein automatically executing the modification includes electronically transmitting an alert of the patient assistance request to a remote expert remotely monitoring the medical imaging examination and establishing communication between the remote expert and the patient.
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, wherein the detected at least one object includes patient distress unresolved by a local operator performing the medical imaging examination, which is an abstract limitation related to observations from the video and audio feeds to detect the patient distress unresolved by the operator, where this step will be used as part of the interaction between individuals for providing assistance,
“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, where this step will be used as part of the interaction between individuals for providing assistance,
“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, where this step will be used as part of the interaction between individuals for providing assistance,
“Determining” a modification of the workflow of the medical imaging examination based on mapping the detected at least one object to the detected event, wherein the determined modification of the workflow includes a patient assistance request, which is an abstract limitation related to a judgement of a patient assistance request 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, where this step will be used as part of the interaction between individuals for providing assistance,
In response to the detection of the unresolved patient distress by the local operator, “execute” the modification to provide assistance during the medical imaging examination, wherein executing the modification includes sending an alert of the patient assistance request to an expert monitoring the medical imaging examination and “establishing” communication between the expert and the patient, which are abstract limitations of interactions between the expert and the patient by considering the previous detection step and then sending the alert assistance request and further establishing connections between the individuals for the management of the 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 and sending the 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 and further presenting the recommendation of changing the setting, 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 (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.) 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, wherein the detected at least one object includes patient distress unresolved by a local operator performing the medical imaging examination;
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, wherein the determined modification of the workflow includes a patient assistance request; and
in response to the detection of the unresolved patient distress by the local operator, automatically (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) execute the modification to provide assistance during the medical imaging examination, wherein automatically executing the modification includes electronically transmitting (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) an alert of the patient assistance request to a remote (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) expert remotely monitoring the medical imaging examination and establishing communication between the remote expert and the patient.
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, automatically performing steps of the abstract idea, electronically transmitting aspects of the abstract idea, and the expert being remote, 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. [0054, 0061] recites the automated nature of the steps by merely being performed on the generic computing components of the AI component and processor. [0035, 0037] recites the electronic transmission of information and the expert being able to communication remotely merely recites the use of generic remote devices and a generic communication link network via the internet. 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.
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 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, wherein the detected at least one object includes patient distress unresolved by a local operator performing the medical imaging examination;
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 wherein the determined modification of the workflow includes a patient assistance request; and
in response to the detection of the unresolved patient distress by the local operator, automatically (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) execute the modification to provide the assistance during the medical imaging examination, wherein the automatically executing the modification includes electronically transmitting (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) an alert of the patient assistance request to a remote (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) expert remotely monitoring the medical imaging examination and establishing communication between the remote expert and patient.
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 automatically performing steps of the abstract idea, electronically transmitting aspects of the abstract idea, and the expert being remote, 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. [0054, 0061] recites the automated nature of the steps by merely being performed on the generic computing components of the AI component and processor. [0035, 0037] recites the electronic transmission of information and the expert being able to communication remotely merely recites the use of generic remote devices and a generic communication link network via the internet. 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.
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 automatically executing the abstract idea and electronically transmitting the request, however this recites mere computer implementation using the generic computing components and network. Claims 5 and 14 recite further additional elements related to first determining the modification and then executing the modification automatically recites the use of the display recites mere computer implementation for displaying or presenting the recommendations, 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 using a display for presenting the recommendation recites mere computer implementation using generic display device. 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, automatically performing steps of the abstract idea, electronically transmitting aspects of the abstract idea, and the expert being remote, 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) 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)”). [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. [0054, 0061] recites the automated nature of the steps by merely being performed on the generic computing components of the AI component and processor. [0035, 0037] recites the electronic transmission of information and the expert being able to communication remotely merely recites the use of generic remote devices and a generic communication link network via the internet. 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. The use of a network to connect the remote expert to the patient in a generic manner from transmitting information and data recites well understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Claim 12 recites similar additional elements that are analyzed in a similar manner as claim 1 that fall under the analysis of additional elements as recited in MPEP § 2106.05(f) and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception, 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 similarly analyzed 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) and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception and recites well understood, routine and conventional activity.
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 automatically performing steps of the abstract idea, electronically transmitting aspects of the abstract idea, and the expert being remote, 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) 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)”). [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. [0054, 0061] recites the automated nature of the steps by merely being performed on the generic computing components of the AI component and processor. [0035, 0037] recites the electronic transmission of information and the expert being able to communication remotely merely recites the use of generic remote devices and a generic communication link network via the internet. 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. The use of a network to connect the remote expert to the patient in a generic manner from transmitting information and data recites well understood, routine, and conventional activity.
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.
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, 4-5, 7-14, 16, 18, 20-22 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The previously cited references do not teach aspects of the current invention including but not limited to: “wherein the determined modification of the workflow includes a patient assistance request; and in response to the detection of the unresolved patient distress by the local operator, automatically execute the modification to provide the assistance during the medical imaging examination, wherein the automatically executing the modification includes electronically transmitting an alert of the patient assistance request to a remote expert remotely monitoring the medical imaging examination and establishing communication between the remote expert and the patient”
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights