Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on December 30, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 13 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. Claims 14 – 16 have been added. Claims 1 – 16 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 13 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 16 have been considered.
The Applicant alleges: “
Amended Claim 1 recites processing circuitry configured to divide a region of the subject tissue into a plurality of regions based on arrival times of a contrast agent perfused into the subject tissue, and thereby generate a vascular territory image showing a plurality of vascular territories included in the subject tissue based on the acquired medical images of multiple time phases.
Applicant respectfully submits that the above step is much more than an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, and is too difficult and complex to be practically performed in the human mind.
Thus, amended Claim 1 is clearly not just "directed to" an abstract idea.
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
For the limitation of “divide a region of the subject tissue into a plurality of regions based on arrival times of a contrast agent perfused into the subject tissue, and thereby generate a vascular territory image showing a plurality of vascular territories included in the subject tissue based on the acquired medical images of multiple time phases,” it can be interpreted as a person (radiologist or researcher) conceptually segments a region of the subject tissue into a plurality of regions based on arrival times of a contrast agent perfused into the subject tissue, creates a presentation using graphs a vascular territory image showing a plurality of vascular territories corelated with time. The claimed limitation can still be categorized as mental processes.
The Applicant further alleges: “
Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that even assuming arguendo that Claim 1 recites an abstract idea, it clearly integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. In this regard, Applicant, notes that such claims directed to processing medical image data have long been patent-eligible.
In particular, in the In re Abele case, the Federal Circuit found a method of displaying data derived from X-ray attenuation data to be patent eligible. In that case, the following claim was found to be patent eligible:
……
Moreover, Applicant notes that the In re Abele case was looked upon favorably in the Federal Circuit In re Bilski case, discussing transformation, which is one of the mechanisms for showing a practical application. In this regard, the Court stated the following:
……
Thus, Claim 1 is similar to the claim in In re Bilski in that medical images of a subject tissue of a subject are acquired, and information indicating an indicator about the feeding territory of the collateral circulation are calculated and outputted. Thus, Claim 1 recites transformation, which integrates any purported abstract idea into a practical application.”
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner again respectfully disagrees.
In the In re Abele case, the court found “
The method of claim 6, unlike that of claim 5, requires “X-ray attenuation data.” The specification indicates that such attenuation data is available only when an X-ray beam is produced by a CAT scanner, passed through an object, and detected upon its exit. Only after these steps have been completed is the algorithm performed, and the resultant modified data displayed in the required format.” (emphasis added).
Thus, the claimed limitation provides a practical and substantial application.
Unlike the In re Abele case, the limitations of “
determine, based on the calculated ratios, a feeding territory of a collateral circulation from the plurality of vascular territories; and
display, based on the calculated ratios, information indicating an indicator value about the feeding territory of a collateral circulation.”
for the instant Application merely discloses a mental process of calculating and presenting data. Thus, it is still an abstract idea.
The Applicant still further alleges: “
Further, Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 1 recites significantly more than an abstract idea, as it recites improvements to existing medical imaging technology, in particular to medical imaging technology to diagnose infarction of a subject tissue of a brain.
In this regard, the specification describes various improvements resulting from the apparatus recited in Claim 1. In particular, as set forth in paragraphs 74-78 in the published application, various indicators of collateral circulation can be calculated and presented. In particular, collateral circulation is an indicator for possible recovery of a tissue and its evaluation is important. wherein the quantitative evaluation of the collateral circulation is directly connected to a treatment decision and a prognosis at the tissue level. Further, paragraph 77 states that "[w]ith such a configuration, an increase and decrease in size of respective vascular territories and the ischemia area can be easily grasped."
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 1 is clearly patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
Examiner’s response:
Still, this display is a presentation for the calculated (determined) values. It does not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Therefore, the § 101 rejection is still maintained.
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 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In regarding claims 1 and 13:
Step 1:
Claims 1 and 13 are directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter which is/are statutory subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 13 are directed an idea for calculating a ratio of each of the two regions to the region of the interest, which is an abstract idea.
Consideration of the claimed elements:
The claims in the instant application include:
acquire medical images of a plurality of time phases of a subject tissue of a subject;
divide a region of the subject tissue into a plurality of regions based on arrival times of a contrast agent perfused into the subject tissue, and thereby generate a vascular territory image showing a plurality of vascular territories included in the subject tissue based on the acquired medical images of multiple time phases;
set a region of interest in the subject tissue;
set at least two regions within the set region of interest, wherein the at least two regions are set out of the vascular territories and an ischemia area, based on the vascular territory image;
calculate a ratio of each of the at least two regions to the region of interest;
determine, based on the calculated ratios, a feeding territory of a collateral circulation from the plurality of vascular territories; and
display, based on the calculated ratios, information indicating an indicator value about the feeding territory of a collateral circulation.
For the limitation of “divide a region of the subject tissue into a plurality of regions based on arrival times of a contrast agent perfused into the subject tissue, and thereby generate a vascular territory image showing a plurality of vascular territories included in the subject tissue based on the acquired medical images of multiple time phases,” it can be interpreted as a person (radiologist or researcher) conceptually segments a region of the subject tissue into a plurality of regions based on arrival times of a contrast agent perfused into the subject tissue, creates a presentation using graphs a vascular territory image showing a plurality of vascular territories corelated with time. The claimed limitation can be categorized as mental processes.
For the limitation of “set a region of interest in the subject tissue,” it can be interpreted as the person can use a pen to specify a region of interest in the subject tissue. The claimed limitation can be categorized as mental processes.
For the limitation of “set at least two regions within the set region of interest, wherein the at least two regions are set out of the vascular territories and an ischemia area, based on the vascular territory image,” it can be interpreted as the person can specify at least two regions and an ischemia area in the region of interest. The claimed limitation can be categorized as mental processes.
For the limitation of “calculate a ratio of each of the at least two regions to the region of interest,” it can be interpreted as, using a mathematical formula, calculate a ratio of each of the at least two regions to the region of interest. The claimed limitation can be categorized as mathematical concepts.
For the limitation of “determine, based on the calculated ratios, a feeding territory of a collateral circulation from the plurality of vascular territories,” it is a quantitative method that relies on physiological principles and advanced imaging to assess collateral blood flow. The claimed limitation can be categorized as mathematical concepts.
Prong 2:
The claims include additional elements of:
acquire medical images of a plurality of time phases of a subject tissue of a subject;
display, based on the calculated ratios, information indicating an indicator value about the feeding territory of a collateral circulation;
a medical image processing apparatus, and processing circuitry (claims 1 - 12).
“[A]cquire medical images of a plurality of time phases of a subject tissue of a subject” is a data gathering step which can be characterized as insignificant extra solution activity;
“[D]isplay, based on the calculated ratios, information indicating an indicator value about the feeding territory of a collateral circulation” is an information outputting which is adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g);
For “a medical image processing apparatus, and processing circuitry”, they are general computer hardware. They are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Moreover, the claim limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Thus, the above recited additional elements perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic memory and processor are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an idea of itself, and therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as improvements to another technology or technical field, or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim language that may be separate from the abstract idea (i.e., additional elements include obtaining input, using a neural network to processing, computers, storage device and non-transitory computer storage media).
The additional elements (acquiring image, displaying results, apparatus, and processing circuitry) perform only basic function, which would be common to every additional element (e.g., acquiring image, displaying results, apparatus, and processing circuitry). They are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)III.
Thus, the recited generic additional elements (e.g., acquiring image, displaying results, apparatus, and processing circuitry) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic memory are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Consequently, the identified additional elements taken into consideration individually or in combination fails to amount of significantly more than the abstract idea above.
Regarding claims 2 – 12 and 14 – 16, the rejection is based on the same rationale described for claims 1 and 13, because the claims include/inherit the same/similar type of problematic limitation(s) as claims 1 and 13, wherein limitations regarding "calculate ... ", “is/are …”, “including …”, " identify... ", “set …”, "detect ... ", " acquire... ", "classify ... ", "output ... ", "determine ... ", "obtained ... ", "display(ing) ... " and/or "being ... ", is/are of sufficient breadth that it would be substantially directed to or reasonably interpreted as a part of the “mental processes” as the abstract idea (similar to claims 1 and 13 as stated above). It is noted that further additional limitation is merely generic/conventional computer component/steps to implement the abstract idea, which is, individually or in combination, not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole is directed to an ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
No reference is found to teach, or in a combination to teach, the claimed limitations in the independent claims.
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 QIAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7239. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QIAN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677