Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reference to the communication filed on 3 FEB 2026.
Amendments to claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-16, 18, 20 entered and considered as is the cancelation of claim 9.
Claims 1-8, 10-18, 20 are present and have been examined.
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 1-8, 10-18, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As explained below, the claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One: Is the Claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1-8, 10-18, 20 the independent claim(s) 1, 20 recite(s) an apparatus, and a non-transitory computer readable medium, each of which represents a statutory category of invention (article of manufacture, process, etc.).
Step 2A – Prong One: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1-8, 10-18, 20 , 20the independent claim(s) (claims 1, 20) is/are directed to, as in exemplary claim 1:
acquire a first medical image information, wherein the first medical image information is a result of an external processing performed on a second medical image information including a medical image,
receive a selected action for the first medical image information, and
register
These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental processes, including concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Processing (as claimed) a medical image to determine first image information, receiving a selection, and registering the action/image information are all examples of such concepts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) additional elements to perform the claim steps. Claim 1 requires a memory, a processing circuitry configured, and claim 20 requires a non-transitory compute readable storage medium which stores program that causes a computer to execute a process,” as well as “external processing,” and a “memory.” Claims 1 and 20 have been amended to require a “medical imaging apparatus” and a “display” to display the medical images.
The memory in each of claims 1, 20 is recited at a high level of merely storing information, and as such is found to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05g). The processing circuitry, processing apparatus, “non-transitory computer readable storage medium…”and newly amended “medical imaging apparatus…” as in claims 1, 20 is found to be at best a general link between the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e. computing or imaging (see MPEP 2106.05h). The use of the computing/processing elements as claimed are the equivalent of adding the words “apply it” or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on/using a computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05f). The imaging apparatus is similarly found to be the equivalent of adding the words “apply it” as the type of device selected does not appear important to the scope of the claim. Examiner does not find any evidence of an improvement to the functioning of a/the computer(s), or the imaging device(s), or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05a), nor anything beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05e). Examiner also notes that displaying images on a display is generally found to be adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception(s) identified (see MPEP 2106.05g).
Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO.
The independent claim(s) is/are additionally directed to claim elements such as: Claim 1 requires a memory, a processing circuitry configured, and claim 20 requires a non-transitory compute readable storage medium which stores program that causes a computer to execute a process,” as well as “external processing,” and a “memory.”
When considered individually, the above identified claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification:
[0039] In the present embodiment, the processing circuitry 60 may be configured by a processor. Here, the word processor means a Central Processing Unit (CPU), a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), a programmable logic device (a Simple Programmable Logic Device (SPLD), a Complex Programmable Logic Device (CPLD), or a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA)), or the like.
[0040] …The processing circuitry 60 is a processor that realizes functions related to each program by reading and executing the program from the memory 84. In other words, the processing circuitry 60 that has read each program now possess each function shown inside the processing circuitry 60 in FIG. 2.
[0043] The memory 84 may be realized by a Random Access Memory (RAM), a semiconductor memory element such as a flash memory, a hard disk, an optical disk, or the like. In the present embodiment, the memory 84 may store the medical image data MID, the analysis result data, or the like.
[0057] Also, the action is not limited to user actions. In other words, the action may be performed by the medical image diagnosis apparatus 200 or the medical image processing apparatus 40 based on the analysis result data. The medical image processing apparatus 40 may be configured to receive the action automatically performed by the medical image diagnosis apparatus 200 or the medical image processing apparatus 40 as the action information. For example, in Step S2, when the medical image processing apparatus 40 acquires the analysis result data that there is a possibility of tuberculosis, the medical image processing apparatus 40 may automatically notify a related information terminal such as a nurse center based on the analysis result data. Then, the medical image processing apparatus 40 may receive the notifying action automatically selected by the medical image processing device 40 as the action information.
These passages, as well as others, makes it clear that the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – the claimed elements as analyzed are recited in terms of functional capability only. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
As per dependent claims 2-18:
Dependent claims 2-6, 13, do not recite any additional abstract ideas than those identified above, however they do recite the non-abstract element of a screen. Examiner finds that the inclusion of the screen is merely an application of the computing technology to the abstract idea rather than any sort of meaningful limitation and/or improvement to the functionality therein. As such Examiner does not find that the inclusion of a screen is sufficient to amount to a practical application nor significantly more.
Dependent claims 7-12, 14-18 are not directed any additional abstract ideas and are also not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as the order or priority of the processing/storing of the images, and the types of interactions/suggested interactions that a user may impart upon the first/second images. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, 10-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nakamura (US 20120183191 A1).
In reference to claim 1, 20:
Nakamura teaches: A medical image diagnosis apparatus (at least [fig 1 and related text] imaging modality 1), comprising
A medical imaging apparatus configured to scan a patient to obtain a medical image, the medical imaging apparatus being one of an x-ray scanner, an x-ray computed tomography (CT) apparatus, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) apparatus, a nuclear medicine apparatus, and an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (at least [077] “Specific examples of the imaging modality 1 include: a CT (Computed Tomography) apparatus; an MR (Magnetic Resonance) apparatus; an X ray imaging apparatus; a PET (Positron Emission Tomography) apparatus, an ultrasound imaging apparatus, and X ray imaging apparatus that employ FPD's (Flat Panel X ray Detectors). Note that hereinafter, combinations of the image data that represent subjects and the data attached to the image data will be referred to as "image information"”);
a memory (at least fig 21 and related text] imaging modality 1 sends info to QAWA-2 which stores the information in information managing server 5); and
processing circuitry (at least [0134, 0137]) configured to; and:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium which stores a program that causes a computer to execute processing comprising (as in claim 20, at least [0137, fig 1 and related text]);
acquire a first medical image information, wherein the first medical image information is a result of an external processing performed on a second medical image information including the medical image (at least [fig 1 and related text] QAWS2 receives the image to verify quality, thereby transferring the “approved” image to the information managing server 5: “he QA-WS 2 receives image information according to the DICOM standard from the modality 1 by functions realized by executing the software program. Then, the image data included in the received image information and the contents of the attached data are displayed on a screen, to solicit the examination technician for confirmation. Image information which has been confirmed by the examination technician is transferred to the image information managing server 5 via the network 9, and a request to register the image information in the image information database 6 is sent.”),
cause the medical image to be displayed on a display (at least [fig 1 and related text] “The display screen generating section 27 generates a display screen SC in which images represented by the processed image data I.sub.11, I.sub.12, I.sub.13, . . . generated by the image processing section 26 are arranged in a display layout based on the display protocol DP determined by the display protocol determining section 24. Thereby, in the example illustrated in FIG. 4, FIG. 5A, and FIG. 5B, the display screen SC, in which images processed by the image processing section 26 are arranged in the regions of the layout illustrated in FIG. 5A, is generated, and displayed on the display of the practice group work station 4.”);
receive a selected action for the first medical image information (at least [fig 3a/3b and related text] “ The software program is booted up when a physician in a practice group, who is a user, depresses the detailed observation button 37 by clicking a mouse of the practice group workstation 4. FIG. 3B illustrates an example in which the detailed observation button 37 is not displayed. In this example, the software program is booted up by double clicking the image 36, for which detailed observation is desired.”), and
register in the memory an action information about the selected action for the first medical image information in association with the first medical image information (at least [078-84, 087-089] “ The image data may be copies of the image data which are registered in the image information database 6. Alternatively, the image data may be reduced image data, which have fewer numbers of pixels (thinned out) than the image data registered in the image information database 6. As a further alternative, the image data may be link data that indicate the storage locations of the image data within the image information database 6 and the file names thereof. In addition, the positional information related to regions of interest may be registered in the image information database 6 as part of the additional data attached to the image data, instead of in the image observation report database 8.”);
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to output the first medical image information prioritizing the first medical image information for which the action information has not been registered (at least [ fig 3a/3b, 14/14b and related text] “ As illustrated in FIG. 14A, a display screen 30 of an image observation report is the display screen illustrated in FIG. 3B from which the region 35 for displaying the thumbnail image 35 of the observation target image is removed. When a user clicks the link "Possible Cerebral Aneurysm" set in region 34 in which the medical opinion is displayed, a pop up screen 39 that includes an observation target image as illustrated in FIG. 14B. If the user right clicks the observation target image, a menu for selecting an image to be displayed is displayed. If "MIP Image" is selected, for example, the program is booted up,..” at [fig 15 and related text] “In addition, a region 40 for displaying the contents of the image processing conditions applied by the image processing section 26, that is, the contents of the image processing conditions determined by the display protocol determining section 24 may be provided in the pop up window 39 as illustrated in FIG. 15. The image of FIG. 15 is that which is generated based on display protocol "106". In FIG. 15, the region 40 indicates that masks that display blood vessels are set to be displayed and that a color template for volume rendering of the brain is selected. Note that if anatomical structures specified by masks are set to be not displayed, an "X" may be displayed in a rectangular radio button in the region 40. Thereby, users are enabled to easily understand what image processing conditions are selected for the image being presently displayed. Further, a configuration may be adopted in which operations to change the selected radio buttons (the hatched rectangle) are received, and the image processing section 26 regenerates an image based on the changed image processing conditions. In this case, the display screen generating section 27 may update the displayed image to the regenerated image.” – i.e. if the changes to the radio buttons are entered, the layering/priority of the image elements may change.)
In reference to claim 2:
Nakamura further teaches: wherein the processing circuitry outputs a selection screen configured to select the selected action for the first medical image information and receives the selected action for the first medical image information based on a user operation (at least [fig 3a/3b and related text] “ The software program is booted up when a physician in a practice group, who is a user, depresses the detailed observation button 37 by clicking a mouse of the practice group workstation 4. FIG. 3B illustrates an example in which the detailed observation button 37 is not displayed. In this example, the software program is booted up by double clicking the image 36, for which detailed observation is desired.”)
In reference to claim 3:
Nakamura further teaches: wherein the selection screen is a screen where the selected action for multiple pieces of the first medical image information can be selected at once (at least [095-0105] “Then, the display protocol determining section 24 automatically selects a display protocol DP that matches the keywords K1, K2, . . . from the display protocol table 23. The image processing section 26 administers image processes on original image data I.sub.1 obtained by the image obtaining section 25, based on the display protocol DP, to generate processed images I.sub.11, I.sub.12, I.sub.13, . . . for display Then, the display screen generating section 27 generates a display screen SC, in which the images I.sub.n, I.sub.12, I.sub.13, . . . for display are arranged in a layout based on the display protocol DP. The display screen SC is displayed by the practice group work station 4.” – multiple keywords for the image can be selected, and/or the display protocal can be selected for an image/applied).
In reference to claim 4:
Nakamura further teaches: wherein the selection screen is a screen where the selected action for the first medical image information can be selected for each piece of the first medical image information (at least 0105] “selects a display protocol DP that matches the keywords K1, K2, . . . from the display protocol table 23. The image processing section 26 administers image processes on original image data I.sub.1 obtained by the image obtaining section 25, based on the display protocol DP, to generate processed images I.sub.11, I.sub.12, I.sub.13, . . . for display Then, the display screen generating section 27 generates a display screen SC, in which the images I.sub.n, I.sub.12, I.sub.13, . . . for display are arranged in a layout based on the display protocol DP. The display screen SC is displayed by the practice group work station 4.” – image protocol is applied to all four views as shown in fig 5a/b).
In reference to claim 5:
Nakamura further teaches: wherein the selection screen is a first screen where the selected action for multiple pieces of the first medical image information can be selected at once (at least [095-0105] “Then, the display protocol determining section 24 automatically selects a display protocol DP that matches the keywords K1, K2, . . . from the display protocol table 23. The image processing section 26 administers image processes on original image data I.sub.1 obtained by the image obtaining section 25, based on the display protocol DP, to generate processed images I.sub.11, I.sub.12, I.sub.13, . . . for display Then, the display screen generating section 27 generates a display screen SC, in which the images I.sub.n, I.sub.12, I.sub.13, . . . for display are arranged in a layout based on the display protocol DP. The display screen SC is displayed by the practice group work station 4.” – multiple keywords for the image can be selected, and/or the display protocol can be selected for an image/applied), or a second screen where the selected action for the first medical image information can be selected for each piece of the first medical image information; and
wherein the processing circuitry switches between the first screen and the second screen based on a user operation (at least [fig 1 and related text] practice work station 4, radiology work station 3, each have two or more displays) (Examiner makes reference to the rejection under 35 USC 112 above).
In reference to claim 7:
Nakamura further teaches: wherein the processing circuitry generates and outputs a list of the first medical image information (at least [fig 4 and related text] showing keyword/target terms of a photo, [fig 5b, 7, 8B and related text] each show a listing of information about a given image/set of images).
In reference to claim 8:
Nakamura further teaches: wherein the processing circuitry transmits the first medical image information and the action information in association with the first medical image information, to a different apparatus (at least [fig 1, 2, 10 and related text] at [079-080] radiology work station 3 and practice group work station 4 are shown as separate computers, with the image information sent to one or both separately).
In reference to claim 10:
Nakamura further teaches wherein, when there are multiple pieces of the first medical image information for which the action information has not been registered, the processing circuitry prioritizes, based on an examination date and time and/or analysis result, the first medical image information for which the action information has not been registered (at least [0117-0119] “Alternatively, the display protocol determining section 24 may preliminarily determine a display protocol DP based only on keywords K1, K2, . . . first, then the image obtaining section 25 may obtain relevant images that satisfy the conditions defined in the preliminarily determined display protocol by searching in the image information database 26. Specifically, in the case of the display protocol illustrated in FIG. 8A and FIG. 8B, the image obtaining section 25 would not search for all images of the patient as that of the observation target image, but only for images of the same patient, having the same examination date and a HRCT as the modality.”)
In reference to claim 11:
Nakamura further teaches: wherein the processing circuitry notifies a presence of the first medical image information for which the action information has not been registered (at least [0117-0119] “Alternatively, the display protocol determining section 24 may preliminarily determine a display protocol DP based only on keywords K1, K2, . . . first, then the image obtaining section 25 may obtain relevant images that satisfy the conditions defined in the preliminarily determined display protocol by searching in the image information database 26. Specifically, in the case of the display protocol illustrated in FIG. 8A and FIG. 8B, the image obtaining section 25 would not search for all images of the patient as that of the observation target image, but only for images of the same patient, having the same examination date and a HRCT as the modality.”).
In reference to claim 12:
Nakamura further teaches: wherein the processing circuitry searches, among multiple pieces of the first medical image information, the first medical image information for which the action information has not been registered (at least [0117-0119] “Alternatively, the display protocol determining section 24 may preliminarily determine a display protocol DP based only on keywords K1, K2, . . . first, then the image obtaining section 25 may obtain relevant images that satisfy the conditions defined in the preliminarily determined display protocol by searching in the image information database 26. Specifically, in the case of the display protocol illustrated in FIG. 8A and FIG. 8B, the image obtaining section 25 would not search for all images of the patient as that of the observation target image, but only for images of the same patient, having the same examination date and a HRCT as the modality.”)
In reference to claim 13:
Nakamura further teaches: wherein the processing circuitry receives the selected action for the first medical image information as a user operation via an input (at least [fig 1, 3a/b and related text] “As illustrated in FIG. 3A, a display screen 30 of the image observation report is constituted by a region 31 in which a patient ID is displayed, a region 32 in which an examination ID is displayed, a region 33 in which an examination date is displayed, a region 34 in which medical opinions regarding an observation target image is displayed, a region 35 in which a thumbnail image 36 of the observation target image or a representative image is displayed, and a detailed observation button 37. The software program is booted up when a physician in a practice group, who is a user, depresses the detailed observation button 37 by clicking a mouse of the practice group workstation 4.”).
In reference to claim 14:
Nakamura further teaches: wherein the processing circuitry recognizes an action performed on the first medical image information (at least [fig 1, 3a/b and related text] user may interact with/open the image using detailed observation button 37 on any device in the system) ; and wherein the processing circuitry receives the recognized action as the selected action for the first medical image information (at least [figs 1, 3a/b and related text] using detailed observation button 37 the image is expanded, and/or “…automatic detection/emphasized display of portions of images which appear to be diseased,”).
In reference to claim 15:
Nakamura further teaches: wherein the processing circuitry recognizes the action performed on the first medical image information, based on a user operation performed on the medical image processing apparatus (at least [fig 1 and related text] actions may be performed on QA-WS2 (quality assurance), image information managing server 5, or image information database 6, all of which are in communication with imaging modality 1 which generates the image data).
In reference to claim 16:
Nakamura further teaches: wherein the processing circuitry recognizes the action performed on the first medical image information, based on a communication result with a different apparatus (at least [fig 1 and related text] “ The radiology work station 3 performs processes such as requesting the image information managing server 5 to view images, displaying images received from the image information managing server 5, automatic detection/emphasized display of portions of images which appear to be diseased, assisting generation of image observation reports, requesting the image observation report server 7 to register and to view image observation reports, and displaying image observation reports received from the image observation report server 7. These processes are performed by software for each process being executed…When a radiologist or a physician in a practice group performs operations to request viewing of an image for observation, the radiology work station 3 or the practice group work station 4 transmits a viewing request to the image information managing server 5, and obtains the image information necessary for observation…When the radiologist inputs text that represents the contents of medical opinions performed based on image observation, the radiology work station 3 generates an image observation report, in which the input information and the image which was the target of observation (hereinafter, observation target image) is recorded. The radiology work station 3 transmits the generated image observation report to the image observation report managing server 7 via the network 9, and sends a request to register the image observation report in the image observation report database 8.”)
In reference to claim 17:
Nakamura further teaches: wherein the first medical image information is generated by executing external processing performed on the second medical image information including the medical image imaged by an imaging apparatus configured to acquire the medical image by imaging a subject (at least [fig 1 and related text] “The imaging modality 1 includes an apparatus that generates three dimensional image data that represent three dimensional images of examination target portions of subjects by imaging these portions, attaches data defined by DICOM standards to the image data, and outputs the image data. Specific examples of the imaging modality 1 include: a CT (Computed Tomography) apparatus; an MR (Magnetic Resonance) apparatus; an X ray imaging apparatus; a PET (Positron Emission Tomography) apparatus, an ultrasound imaging apparatus, and X ray imaging apparatus that employ FPD's (Flat Panel X ray Detectors).” Radiology work station 3 performs processes on second image information).
In reference to claim 18:
Nakamura further teaches: wherein the first medical image information includes information about a recommended action (at least [fig 3a/b and related text] user depresses detailed observation button 37 – i.e. the recommendation); and
wherein the processing circuitry determines whether the recommended action has been performed or not, based on the selected action and the information about the recommended action (at least [fig 3a/b, 4 and related text] detailed observation button 37 brings up additional information including keywords).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Hirosaka (US 20210280300 A1)
In reference to claim 6:
Nakamura teaches all the limitations above. Nakamura further teaches: wherein the processing circuitry outputs a confirmation screen configured to confirm whether to save the first medical image information for which the selected action has been selected, based on the received selected action for the first medical image information (at least [fig 1 and related text] “The QA-WS 2 receives image information according to the DICOM standard from the modality 1 by functions realized by executing the software program. Then, the image data included in the received image information and the contents of the attached data are displayed on a screen, to solicit the examination technician for confirmation. Image information which has been confirmed by the examination technician is transferred to the image information managing server 5 via the network 9, and a request to register the image information in the image information database 6 is sent.”); and
wherein the processing circuitry registers the action information about the selected action for the first medical image information in association with the first medical image information based on a user operation on the confirmation screen (at least [fig 1 and related text] “The QA-WS 2 receives image information according to the DICOM standard from the modality 1 by functions realized by executing the software program. Then, the image data included in the received image information and the contents of the attached data are displayed on a screen, to solicit the examination technician for confirmation. Image information which has been confirmed by the examination technician is transferred to the image information managing server 5 via the network 9, and a request to register the image information in the image information database 6 is sent.”). While Nakamura as cited teaches saving/storing the image for future use by a selection on a screen, and while one of ordinary skill could likely infer that the inverse or opposite of the saving is discarding an image of insufficient quality, Examiner notes that Hirosaka teaches:
confirmation screen configured to confirm whether to save or discard the first medical image information for which the selected action has been selected, based on the received selected action for the first medical image information (at least [fig 4a, 5 and related text] retake button 426 “In this operation, the radiographic image capturing control apparatus 11 adds additional information, such as examination information about a radiological image that is a retake target and is not used…” “In a case where the operator presses the cancel button 550 illustrated in FIG. 5, for example, the image capturing control unit 112 discards the key object that is being created.” Hirosaka and Nakamura are analogous references as both disclose a means of controlling and storing medical images of a patient for efficient storage and analysis. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that during an imaging process, from an x-ray to school pictures, a retake of an unsatisfactory image is desired to supersede the inferior, inaccurate, or otherwise unusable image, and as such, once a satisfactory retake exists there would no longer be a use for the original image and it would therefore be discarded.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180053300 A1 to Podilchuk discloses a means of reproducing or manipulating an original medical image for future use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks as filed on 3 FEB 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 5 negate the rejection under 35 USC 112b. As such the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the prior art rejection begin on page 9, with a discussion of the amendments and the reference cited. Applicant contends that the reference does not teach the newly amended limitations of exemplary claim 1 – Examiner respectfully disagrees in view of the claim language and the updated citations presented above. Applicant’s remarks appear solely focused on the reference itself, rather than the language of the claims. The specification does not provide discussion nor figures regarding the “prioritizing” of the image information. As such, under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, any information being “prioritized” in any way in an image would read on the limitation itself. Examiner suggests amending the claims to clarify the “selected action” which could advance prosecution by narrowing the limitation regarding prioritizing based on action information registered/not registered.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the 101 rejection begin on page 10 of the remarks. Applicant argues analogy to In Re Abele, however Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analogy. Specifically, the transformation of data as discussed on page 11 is specific to the data actually collected by the tomography scanner itself. While claim 1 does recite the image data obtained by a plurality of possible modalities, the manipulation of the data in the claim is not specific to the modality itself as it appears to be in the example provided by Applicant. The output is pertaining to a priority rather than to specific technical elements of the image as collected by a particular machine itself. Examiner also respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s remarks regarding the identification of an abstract idea on page 11/12. Applicant discusses the acquiring step, but it appears Applicant refers to generalizations about the analysis on page 12. Similarly, registering information can be found to be done in the human mind, with the additional element of a memory, the process is fairly categorized as insignificant extra solution activity of storing data in a memory. Put another way, a claim can recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements to execute the abstract idea can be found to be insufficient to amount to a finding of significantly more. Examiner suggests that identifying a specific imaging modality and perhaps incorporating image aspects specific to said modality would advance prosecution with regard to the 101 rejection.
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 KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mamon Obeid can be reached at 571-270-1813. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights