DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant filed a response dated 2/2/2026 in which claims 1 and 15-19 have been amended, claims 5, 8 and 14 have been canceled and new claim 24 has been added. Thus, the claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, and 15-24 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea to output information based on comparison without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1 and 15-19.
Claim 1 is directed to a device, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 describes an analysis device comprising: a hardware processor; an acquirer; and an outputter, wherein the hardware processor acquires first medically-related information obtained through computer processing performed on medical information, the hardware processor acquires unstructured data including a natural language report created by a user based on the medical information and converts the unstructured data to structured data that corresponds to a structure of the first medically-related information by assigning meanings, attributes, or both to words included in the unstructured data according to a structure dictionary in which words are pre-classified into prescribed attributes, the acquirer acquires second medically-related information from the structured data, the hardware processor classifies the second medically-related information acquired by the acquirer into third medically-related information by combining various different expressions used in the second medically-related information for a specific piece of information into a single expression for the specific piece of information, the hardware processor compares the acquired first medically-related information and the third medically-related information, and the outputter outputs next step information on the basis of a comparison result from the comparing. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe the abstract idea to output information based on comparison. Furthermore, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of a hardware processor, an acquirer, and an outputter do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of a hardware processor, an acquirer, and an outputter result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a hardware processor, an acquirer, and an outputter are recited at a high level of generality, and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing device. The presence of a generic computing device does nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPRP 2106.05(f)). The additional limitations of a hardware processor, an acquirer, and an outputter are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a hardware processor, an acquirer, and an outputter are recited at a high level of generality in that it result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to other independent claims 15-19, and hence the claims 15-19 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-13, and 20-23 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract in nature for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-13, and 20-23 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, and 15-23 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed dated 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-13, and 15-24 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that independent claim 1 is amended to recite additional technical details regarding how the unstructured data is converted into structured data. The technical problem, to be solved by the invention relates to making it possible to compare unstructured data created by a user, i.e., radiologist, to structured data, which is the result of an AI analysis. The claimed invention now specifies a specific means and method for comparing unstructured natural language data to structured data generated by computer processing performed on medical information. More specifically, the hardware processor converts unstructured natural language report data created by a user into a structured data that corresponds to a structure of the first medically-related data by assigning meanings, attributes, or both to words in the unstructured data using a structure dictionary, thereby allowing the unstructured data to be compared to the structured data. The claim is directed to limitations that describe a specific technical detail regarding how unstructured information based on user-created information can be converted so that it can be compared to structured information generated by a processor, i.e., using a structure dictionary in which words are pre-classified into prescribed attributes and/or meanings. Accordingly, the recitations are directed to a specific improvement by allowing the unstructured natural language report to be compared to first medically-related information generated by computer processing.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the process of comparing unstructured data created by a user, i.e., radiologist, to structured data, which is the result of an AI analysis and converting the unstructured natural language report data created by a user into a structured data that corresponds to a structure of the first medically-related data by assigning meanings, attributes, or both to words in the unstructured data using a structure dictionary, thereby allowing the unstructured data to be compared to the structured data is an abstract concept and does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem or provide a technical solution. The comparing step result in conversion of unstructured data to a structured form does not result in any technical improvement even if the structured data is generated by AI analysis which is nothing more than using the AI (i.e., applying it). This step does not improve AI model. Moreover, the claim simply recites a hardware processor and does not recite AI. Examiner interprets the computer processor to perform the AI analysis and as such there is no improvement to computer when the comparing step was carried out. In the absence of a technical improvement or technical solution to a technical problem, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights