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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/26/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the RCE filed 1/26/2026.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 10, 16-17, 19-20 were amended 12/05/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: “into a meaning of the least one of the icon or the symbol” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 16, and 20 and therefore their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claims 1, 16, and 20 recite “a standardized display format independent of the medical imaging device”. The specification recites in paragraph 51 that a standard display format that is independent of the medical image device is operated by the local operator, not that there is a standardized display format. A standard display, to one of ordinary skill in the art, is a display that is common with a computing device and a standard display format is interpreted to mean that the display is in the standard format for the display of a standard computing device. However, the specification is silent to a standardized display format.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are drawn to a method, apparatus, and non-transitory computer readable medium which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claims 1 and 16 recite provide assistance from a remote expert (RE) to a local operator (LO) during a medical imaging examination, comprising: extract image features from image frames displayed operable by the local operator during the medical imaging examination, wherein the image features displayed are in a format associated with the medical imaging, and wherein the extract image features includes to extract at least one of an icon or a symbol; convert the extracted image features into a representation of a current status of the medical imaging examination wherein the representation is a standardized display format independent of…and wherein the representation includes a translation of the at least one of the icon or the symbol into a meaning of the least one of the icon or the symbol; and displaying the standardized display format operable by the remote expert.
Independent claim 20 recites providing assistance from a remote expert (RE) to a local operator (LO) during a medical imaging examination, comprising: extracting image features from image framed displayed operable by the local operator during the medical imaging examination wherein the image features displayed are in a format associated with the medical imaging, and wherein extracting image features includes extracting at least one of an icon or a symbol; converting the extracted image features into a representation indicative of a current status of the medical imaging examination by: identifying one or more of the extracted features from the image frames as personally identifiable information of a patient to be scanned during the medical imaging examination; and generating modified image frames from the image frames displayed by one of removing the identified personally identifiable information features form the image frames or replacing the personally identifiable information in the image frames with text, a second symbol, or a color; wherein the representation is a standardized display format independent of the medical imaging, wherein the representation includes a translation of the at least one of the icon or the symbol into a meaning of the least one of the icon or the symbol and; providing displaying the standardized display format operable by the remote expert.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity between a remote expert, local operator and a patient, as reflected in the specification, which states that “providing assistance from a remote medical imaging expert RE (or supertech) to a local technician operator LO is shown. As shown in FIGURE 1, the local operator LO, who operates a medical imaging device (also referred to as an image acquisition device, imaging device, and so forth) 2, is located in a medical imaging device bay 3, and the remote operator RE is disposed in a remote service location or center 4. It should be noted that the "remote operator" RE may not necessarily directly operate the medical imaging device 2, but rather provides assistance to the local operator LO in the form of advice, guidance, instructions, or the like.” (see: specification paragraph 24). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address “Another advantage resides in removing or blocking information related to a patient being imaged by a technician in data transmitted to a remote expert or radiologist.” (see: specification paragraph 12). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).”
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “non-transitory computer readable medium”, “electronic processor”, “medical imaging device”, “controller”, “user interface (UI)”, “apparatus”, “workstation”, and “display device” are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the inputting and displaying is performed using generic computer components with instructions are executed to perform the claimed limitations). Such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, Figure 4 and
Paragraph 30, where “The workstation 12 includes typical components, such as an electronic processor 20 (e.g., a microprocessor), at least one user input device (e.g., a mouse, a keyboard, a trackball, and/or the like) 22, and at least one display device 24 (e.g. an LCD display, plasma display, cathode ray tube display, and/or so forth). In some embodiments, the display device 24 can be a separate component from the workstation 12. The display device 24 may also comprise two or more display devices, e.g. one display presenting the video 17 and the other display presenting the shared screen of the imaging device controller 10 generated from the screen mirroring data stream 18. Alternatively, the video and the shared screen may be presented on a single display in respective windows. The electronic processor 20 is operatively connected with a one or more non-transitory storage media 26. The non-transitory storage media 26 may, by way of non-limiting illustrative example, include one or more of a magnetic disk, RAID, or other magnetic storage medium; a solid state drive, flash drive, electronically erasable read-only memory (EEROM) or other electronic memory; an optical disk or other optical storage; various combinations thereof; or so forth; and may be for example a network storage, an internal hard drive of the workstation 12, various combinations thereof, or so forth. It is to be understood that any reference to a non-transitory medium or media 26 herein is to be broadly construed as encompassing a single medium or multiple media of the same or different types. Likewise, the electronic processor 20 may be embodied as a single electronic processor or as two or more electronic processors. The non-transitory storage media 26 stores instructions executable by the at least one electronic processor 20. The instructions include instructions to generate a graphical user interface (GUI) 28 for display on the remote operator display device 24.”
Paragraph 25, where “The image acquisition device 2 can be a Magnetic Resonance (MR) image acquisition device, a Computed Tomography (CT) image acquisition device; a positron emission tomography (PET) image acquisition device; a single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) image acquisition device; an X-ray image acquisition device; an ultrasound (US) image acquisition device; or a medical imaging device of another modality.”
Paragraph 31 where “The medical imaging device controller 10 in the medical imaging device bay 3 also includes similar components as the remote workstation 12 disposed in the remote service center 4. Except as otherwise indicated herein, features of the medical imaging device controller 10, which includes a local workstation 12', disposed in the medical imaging device bay 3 similar to those of the remote workstation 12”
Paragraph 51, where “At an operation 108, the GUI 28 is configured to display the visualization 50 (e.g., one or more of the representation 43 generated by the abstract representation module 42, the representation of the state machine 45 generated by the state machine module 44, and the modified images 47 generated by the image modification module 46, or any overlay of any of these options). The visualization 50 can be displayed using a standard display format that is independent of the medical imaging device 2 operated by the local operator LO during the medical imaging examination.”
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with route, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-15 and 17-19 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 10 further recites “a database” which does not provide significantly more to the abstract idea as it is generically recited in the specification paragraph 35. Claim 14 recites “medical imaging devices” which are generically recited in the specification (paragraph 25) and do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 11, 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed (US 2017/0195377 A1) in view of Drozdzal (US 8,422,755 B2).
CLAIM 1-
Ahmed teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions to provide assistance from a remote expert (RE) to a local operator (LO) of a medical imaging device during a medical imaging examination, the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:(Ahmed teaches a radiologist workflow manager that is on a medium that instructs the system using a processor to communicate needs of a user (i.e., local operator) using a medical imaging device such as a CT system to communicate with an expert teleradiologist (i.e., remote expert) (para [0040-45, 0229, 0081, 0108]))
convert the extracted image features into a representation of a current status of the medical imaging examination, wherein the representation of is a standardized display format independent of the medical imaging device and provide a user interface (Ul) displaying the standardized display format on a workstation operable by the remote expert (Ahmed teaches obtaining image information (i.e., image features) from capturing context data of the study and providing the current state of the active imaging study and that the first device and the second device (wherein one of the devices may be that of an imaging desktop) utilize different user interfaces (i.e., the image features can be in display formats independent of the medical imaging device) and can use screenshare to implement a standardized display format (under broadest reasonable interpretation as the specification shows that the standardized format is implemented through screen mirroring through devices paragraph 31 of specification) (para [0037, 0044, 0047, 0078 197, 0165, 0081, 0108, 0158, 0215-0225], Figures 13, 15-16))
Ahmed does teach extracting image information to provide context to the images in each study (i.e., extracted image features), but does not explicitly teach, however Drozdzal teaches:
and wherein the representation includes a translation of the at least one of the icon or the symbol into a meaning of the least one of the icon or the symbol; (Drozdzal teaches that when the image features are extracted a tissue color bar (i.e., visual icon) is indicated along the image stream to be identified and show statistical information (i.e., meanings) (col 10 lines 33-50))
extract image features from image frames displayed on a display device of a controller of the medical imaging device operable by the local operator during the medical imaging examination, wherein the image features displayed on the display device are in a format associated with the medical imaging device and wherein to extract image features includes to extract at least one of an icon or a symbol (Drozdzal teaches extracting image features from video image frames displayed on a display device system communication with the imaging device to provide the images to an image receiver which is being used by the local user during medical examination and are displayed in a digital image color format that is associated with the imaging device. Drozdzal further teaches that when the image features are extracted a tissue color bar (i.e., visual icon) is indicated along the image stream to be identified (col 11 lines 2-12, col 7 lines 10-50, col 5 lines 64-67, col 8 lines 58-67, col 10 lines 33-50))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the image collaboration system of Ahmed to integrate the application of extracting image features in a real-time video feed of Drozdzal with the motivation of improving the synchronization of images in an image sequence to improve identification of the presence of pathological diagnosis (see: Drozdzal, col 1).
CLAIM 2-
Ahmed in view of Drozdzal teaches the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 2, Ahmed further teaches:
wherein to convert the extracted image features into the representation of the current status of the medical imaging examination further includes: to input the extracted image features into a generic imaging examination workflow model that is independent of a format of the image features displayed on the display device of the controller operable by the local operator (LO) to generate the representation (Ahmed teaches obtaining image information (i.e., image features) from capturing context data of the study and providing the current state of the active imaging study (i.e., current status) including the contextual data of the study to be input into the workflow model to maintain consistent status of the studies being associated with the proper patient in the workflow that is displayed to the first user in the formatting of the images (para [0197, 0165, 0081, 0108, 0158, 0215-0225, 0165, 0067, 0045, 0063]))
CLAIM 3-
Ahmed in view of Drozdzal teaches the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 3, Ahmed further teaches:
wherein the representation includes one or more of: a number of scans, (Ahmed teaches that the data includes the series of images acquired by a modality and the modality includes different scanning techniques (para [0062, 0041]))
CLAIM 4-
Ahmed in view of Drozdzal teaches the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 4, Ahmed further teaches:
input the representation into an imaging examination workflow model indicative of a current state of the medical imaging examination; and provide the imaging examination workflow model on the workstation operable by the remote expert (RE) (Ahmed teaches obtaining image information (i.e., image features) from capturing context data of the study and providing the current state of the active imaging study to be displayed on the user device of the remote expert based on workflow management features being input into the system (para [0045, 0197, 0165, 0081, 0108 0215-0225]))
CLAIM 5-
Ahmed in view of Drozdzal teaches the limitations of claim 4. Regarding claim 5, Ahmed further teaches:
wherein the extracted image features include data input to the controller by the local operator (LO) and displayed on the display device of the controller, and the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: update the imaging examination workflow model provided on the workstation operable by the remote expert (RE) with the data input by the local operator (Ahmed teaches obtaining image information (i.e., image features) from capturing context data of the study to be input into the workflow model to maintain consistent status of the studies being associated with the proper patient in the workflow that is displayed and updated to a current state view to the first user when collaborating with the second user (which can be a remote expert) (para [0197, 0165, 0081, 0108, 0158, 0215-0225, 0165, 0067, 0045, 0063, 0170, 0234, Figure 7, Figure 15, Figure 19]))
CLAIM 6-
Ahmed in view of Drozdzal teaches the limitations of claim 4. Regarding claim 6, Ahmed further teaches:
Identify a trigger event in the imaging examination workflow model at which an action needs to be taken by the remote expert (RE) and/or the local operator (LO); (Ahmed teaches event actions that can be performed on the medical study of the display by any user using the collaboration tool and these events are monitored and recorded (para [0242, 0168]))
and output an alert via the UI operable by the remote expert indicating the trigger event (Ahmed teaches that the event actions and states are broadcast (i.e., alerted) to all recipients in the collaboration session (para [0168]))
CLAIM 8-
Ahmed in view of Drozdzal teaches the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 8, Drozdzal further teaches:
wherein to extract image features from image frames displayed on the display device of the controller operable by the local operator (LO) during the medical imaging examination further includes to identify a dialog screen template that corresponds to a dialog screen depicted in an image frame, (Drozdzal teaches that the image features are displayed locally on the device controlled by the user during the medical exam and that the image database includes an image feature template that corresponds to the image frame (col 9 lines 5-43, col 11 lines 2-12, col 7 lines 10-50, col 5 lines 64-67, Figure 4 (col 2, lines 16-17)))
wherein the dialog screen template identifies one or more screen regions and associates the one or more screen regions with settings of the medical imaging examination; and extract information from the image frame and associate the extracted information in the one or more screen regions with settings of the medical imaging examination using the associations provided by the dialog screen template (Drozdzal teaches matching sequences of the regions of the image frames based on similarities of other image sequences based on imaging factors (i.e., scan settings) of the medical imaging exam and displaying this extracted metadata information onto a screen that shows the image frames with the affected regions and their respective associated template (col 12 lines 30-60, col 10 lines 62-67, col 15 lines 40-60, col 6 lines 47-67, Figure 7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the image collaboration system of Ahmed to integrate the application of extracting image features in a real-time video feed to compare to a template of Drozdzal with the motivation of improving the synchronization of images in an image sequence to improve identification of the presence of pathological diagnosis (see: Drozdzal, col 1).
CLAIM 9-
Ahmed in view of Drozdzal teaches the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 9, Ahmed further teaches:
wherein the extracted information includes one or more of: position of image features on the display device (Ahmed teaches that the presentation can include the position of the label information of the image and is displayed on the viewer device (para [0064]))
CLAIM 11-
Ahmed in view of Drozdzal teaches the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 11, Ahmed further teaches:
Extract the image features from the image frames displayed on the display device of the controller using screen sharing software running on the controller (Ahmed teaches using screen sharing to facilitate image collaboration between devices including displaying specific image data (i.e., image features) and annotating them based on the image in the series (i.e., image frames) (para [0046, 0168, 0187]))
CLAIM 13-
Ahmed in view of Drozdzal teaches the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 13, Ahmed further teaches:
display a representation at the workstation operated by the remote expert (RE) using a standard display format that is independent of the medical imaging device operated by the local operator (LO) during the medical imaging examination (Ahmed teaches a first user device that includes a user interface with the imaging desktop with various tools to facilitate the image manipulation and annotation (i.e., LO) while the second user device can be used by a referring physician (i.e., remote expert) that uses a client browser (para [0041-0048]))
CLAIM 14-
Ahmed in view of Drozdzal teaches the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 14, Ahmed further teaches:
the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to extract and convert image features from image frames displayed on a plurality of display devices of a plurality of controllers of a plurality of medical imaging devices operable by a plurality of corresponding local operators during a plurality of medical imaging examinations at a plurality of sites and the representation includes information from the sites of the plurality of sites (Ahmed teaches the use of a roster list tool that displays collaborating clinicians at different locations and what specialty they have (i.e., imaging) and also the presence tool keeps track of the presence of local users in an enterprise and teaches multiple user devices that can mirror the image features to be displayed across to multiple clinicians (para [0082, 0079, 0037, 0044, 0047], Figure 19, Figure 15))
CLAIM 15-
Ahmed in view of Drozdzal teaches the limitations of claim 14. Regarding claim 15, Ahmed further teaches:
wherein the representation includes a list showing a status of the medical imaging examinations at the corresponding sites (Ahmed teaches that the workflow tool will determine active studies into a work queue and determines whether the study is open and active or not (para [0215-0221]))
CLAIMS 16-18-
Claims 16-18 are significantly similar to claims 1-2 and 6 respectively and are rejected upon the same prior art as claims 1-2 and 6.
Claim(s) 7, 10, 12, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed (US 2017/0195377 A1) in view of Drozdzal (US 8,422,755 B2) and further in view of Dey (US 2020/0285771 A1).
CLAIM 7-
Ahmed in view of Drozdzal teaches the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 7, Ahmed in view of Drozdzal does not explicitly teach, however Dey teaches:
wherein to convert the extracted image features into a representation of a current status of the medical imaging examination further includes to identify one of more of the extracted features from the image frames as personally identifiable information of a patient to be scanned during the medical imaging examination; (Dey teaches displaying the upload status of the medical images of the surgical procedure and identifying extracted features from the image frames including PII of the patient in the medical imaging data (i.e., image features) and deconstructing them into individual frames (para [0013, 0006, 0019]))
generate modified image frames from the image frames displayed on the display device of the controller by one of removing the identified personally identifiable information features from the image frames or replacing the personally identifiable information in the image frames with text; (Dey teaches that the PII in the image frames are modified with the image frames removing the PII and renames the file so that the PII is not present (para [0020, 0017]))
and display the modified image frames as a video feed presented on the UI on the workstation operated by the remote expert (RE) (Dey teaches that the modified image frames without the PII are displayed on a user interface of a system being sent to a third-party analytics provider in their expert field (i.e., knee surgery) (para [0020, 0022, 0026]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the image comparison frame collaboration system of Ahmed in view of Drozdzal to integrate the application of removing PII in the video image frames of Dey with the motivation of improving the secure transfer of medical data that is HIPAA compliant (see: Dey, paragraphs 2-3).
CLAIM 10-
Ahmed in view of Drozdzal teaches the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 10, Drozdzal further teaches:
wherein to extract image features from image frames displayed on the display device of the controller operable by the local operator (LO) during the medical imaging examination(Drozdzal teaches extracting image features from video image frames displayed on a display device system communication with the imaging device to provide the images to an image receiver which is being used by the local user during medical examination (col 11 lines 2-12, col 7 lines 10-50, col 5 lines 64-67))
Ahmed in view of Drozdzal does not explicitly teach, however Dey teaches:
includes at least one of: performing optical character recognition (OCR) on the image frames displayed on the display device of the controller operable by the local operator to extract textual information (Dey teaches OCR performed on the image frames to be displayed to the user’s device to extract textual PII information (para [0027, 0017]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the image comparison frame collaboration system of Ahmed in view of Drozdzal to integrate the application of removing PII in the video image frames of Dey with the motivation of improving the secure transfer of medical data that is HIPAA compliant (see: Dey, paragraphs 2-3).
CLAIM 12-
Ahmed in view of Drozdzal teaches the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 12, Ahmed further teaches:
at the workstation operated by the remote expert (RE), receive a video feed capturing the display device of the controller operated by the local operator (LO); display the video feed at the workstation operated by the remote expert; (Ahmed teaches as part of the collaboration tools between the user devices there is received video feed that shows real-time screen-sharing of what is on the user screen and can see the changes on the image data in real time between the users and one of the users may be a remote teleradiologist (para [0106, 0037, 0080, 0168]))
Ahmed in view of Drozdzal does not explicitly teach, however Dey teaches:
and extract the image features from the received video feed (Dey teaches extracting anatomical features from the images captured from the video feeds (para [0007-8))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the image comparison frame collaboration system of Ahmed in view of Drozdzal to integrate the application of receiving video image frames without PII of Dey with the motivation of improving the secure transfer of medical data that is HIPAA compliant (see: Dey, paragraphs 2-3).
CLAIM 19-
Claim 19 is significantly similar to claim 7 and is rejected upon the same prior art as claim 7.
CLAIM 20-
Claim 20 is significantly similar to claims 1, 4 and 7 and is rejected upon the same prior art as claims 1, 4, and 7.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 12/5/2025 have been fully considered.
The amendments/arguments pertaining to the 112(a) rejections are not persuasive. The independent claims have a 112(a) rejection as there doesn’t appear to be a standardization of formats.
The arguments pertaining to the 101 rejection are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed invention is directed towards a practical application by providing specific technical features that enables a remote expert to rapidly switch between screen views of information from different medical imaging systems to obtain information regarding medical imaging examinations and quickly access each imaging situation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The functions argued are representative of the abstract idea. The extracting, converting and displaying of image features using a generic computing device as evidenced in the specification does not provide a practical application. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality that amount to a practical application. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to a technical problem presented by combining the two. In the present case, the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the identified abstract idea(s) in the rejection into a patent-eligible application of that idea.
Further, not every claim that recites concrete, tangible components escapes the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry. (See, e.g., Alice, 134). It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components that are generic is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. In order to amount to an inventive concept, the components must involve more than performance of “’well-understood, routine, conventional activities’ previously known to the industry.” (Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)). The originally filed specification was investigated and found to support this conclusion.
Further, the current claimed invention displays image features on a display device in a format associated with the medical imaging device and screen mirrors this data so that the display format is standardized (paragraph 31, Figures 1-2). The format is not being standardized in real time using different software platforms as shown in Example 42, but rather the format is displayed the same as it is screen mirrored to other devices. Improving interactions between a remote medical imaging expert RE (or supertech) to a local technician operator LO by rapidly switching screens on a generic computing device does not provide a technical improvement.
Applicant further argues that dependent claims 2, 6, 8 and 10 provide practical applications by having technical features used for extracting features and/or generating the representation or providing an alert for action needed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. These features are not additional features that would overcome the abstract idea, but are inherently part of the abstract idea of the independent claim. Extracting, generating, displaying, and providing alert thresholds for data on a generic computing device using templates and threshold calculations do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea. Data manipulated on a generic computing device is not an improvement to technology. The 101 rejection is maintained.
The arguments pertaining to the 103 rejection are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Ahmed and Drozdzal do not teach “extract at least one of an icon or symbol” or “translation of the at least one of the icon or the symbol into a meaning of the least one of the icon or the symbol”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Drodzal teaches these features in col 10 lines 33-50 wherein visual markers such as color bars indicate image frames and can include statistical information that summarizes the patterns to be displayed to the user. This teaches the claim limitations under broadest reasonable interpretation and follows what is described in the specification paragraph 46 wherein the textual labels of an icon of the image features can be translated onto a display device.
Applicant further argues that in claim 8, Drozdzal does not teach a dialog screen template as the template sequences of Drozdzal do not include “the dialog screen template identifies one or more screen regions and associates the one or more screen regions with medical imaging examination settings” or “associate the extracted information in the one or more screen regions with settings of the medical imaging examination using the associations provided by the dialog screen template”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The dialog screen template in the specification paragraph 47 recites that it identifies one or more screen regions and associates the one or more screen regions with settings of the medical imaging examination (which are described as scan settings in paragraph 31) implemented from a database (Figure 2). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, Drozdzal teaches these claim limitations. Drozdzal uses an image database with image feature templates to correspond image features to image frames (i.e., screen region) based on aligning images with similar features and bypass artifacts (image factors) taken during the image capture (i.e., scan settings) as referenced in col 11 lines 2-12 and further supported (col 9 lines 5-43, col 7 lines 10-50, col 5 lines 64-67, Figure 4 (col 2, lines 16-17))). Further, displaying extracted metadata based on affected regions and their respective associated template teaches the claim limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation, as the dialog screen templates are based on scan settings such as contrast settings(paragraph 43 of the specification) which are image features during the intake of the image (i.e., scan) as taught by Drozdzal (col 12 lines 30-60, col 10 lines 62-67, col 15 lines 40-60, col 6 lines 47-67, Figure 7).
The dependent claims rely on the arguments of the independent claims and are rejected for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gentles (US 7593918 B2) teaches using medical image screens with specific modality interfaces that are similar to the scan settings referenced in the current claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY A SASS whose telephone number is (571)272-4774. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-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 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.
/KIMBERLY A. SASS/Examiner, Art Unit 3686