DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 28 July, 2025.
Claims 1 and 18 have been amended.
Claims 20 and 21 been added
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 7, 9 – 11, 14, 16 and 18 - 21 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “external image storage device” has an antecedent basis issue. The first instance of a term should a “a’ term and the other instances should be “the” term. Claim 18 has these reversed in order. Similarly, “group information” has an antecedent basis issue. It appear that “imparting a group information” includes the group information that was previously generated. The claim should recite “imparting the group information”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following rejection is formatted in accordance with MPEP 2106.
Claim 18 is representative. Claim 18 recites:
A radiation imaging processing method comprising:
selecting and setting grouping condition for grouping original medical images obtained by imaging an object and edited medical images newly generated by editing the original medical images, among a plurality of grouping conditions;
generating group information that causes an external image storage device to store the original and edited medical images in association based on a reconstruction relationship;
imparting the group information onto the original medical images and the edited medical images in accordance with the selected grouping condition; and
transmitting the original medical images to which the group information is imparted and the edited medical images to which the group information is imparted to the external image storage device.
Claim 19 recites medium with instructions executed by a processor that executes the steps of the method recited in Claim 18, and Claim 1 recites a system that performs similar steps.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 7, 9 – 11, 14, 16 and 18 - 21 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), and does not include additional elements that either: 1) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or 2) that provide an inventive concept – i.e. element that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Claims are directed to an abstract idea because, when considered as a whole, the plain focus of the claims is on an abstract idea.
STEP 1
The claims are directed to an apparatus, a method and non-transitory computer readable medium which are included in the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE
The claims, as illustrated by Claim 18, recite limitations that encompass an abstract idea including:
selecting and setting grouping condition for grouping original medical images obtained by imaging an object and edited medical images newly generated by editing the original medical images, among a plurality of grouping conditions;
generating group information that causes an external image storage device to store the original and edited medical images in association based on a reconstruction relationship;
imparting the group information onto the original medical images and the edited medical images in accordance with the selected grouping condition.
The claims, as illustrated by Claim 18, recite limitations that encompass an abstract idea within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping –
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
The claims recite selecting and setting a grouping condition for grouping original and edited medical images, generating group information and grouping a plurality of medical images in accordance with the selected grouping condition. The specification discloses that the grouping condition is selected by an operator via radio buttons displayed on a user interface (@ 0052 – 0057, Figure 2). Grouping conditions that maybe selected include: “Scheduled Procedure Step” (SPS) - indicating the type of imaging apparatus (modality); “Protocol” - indicating an imaging condition or an image processing condition; and “Image”- indicating that each image is grouped individually.
“Original” medical images are those obtained from the imaging modality, and sent to the PACS. (@ 0023 – 0026) Original medical images may be selected by the operator “in order to perform additional image processing”, and then stored as “duplicates”. Image processing includes techniques such as “combining” images, “rotation, inversion, segmentation, contrast adjustment, brightness adjustment, etc.” (@ 0074, 0098). The duplicate or combined image may be made into the same group as the original image, or into a different group from the original (@ 0056).
Here, Examiner construes the recited “edited medical images” as a duplicate image of the original image that has been processed using the image processing techniques noted above, and stored. The term “edit” is not used in the specification in any form. Further, Examiner construes the recited “reconstruction relationship” as a “protocol” as described in the specification. The term reconstruction relationship is not used in the specification. The specification discloses that protocol includes “imaging conditions” and “image processing conditions”. As such, the reconstruction relationship is the image processing conditions applied to the image. Images having the same image processing protocol applied thereto are grouped together.
For example, Figure 8 shows how the same 5 images (an original, a duplicate, and 3 combined images) may be grouped differently based on user selections made according to Figure 2. Figure 8A shows all five images grouped together based on a common modality (SPS). Figure 8B shows images grouped by Protocol where grouping duplicate images in different groups is not selected. Figure 8C shows images grouped by Protocol where grouping duplicate images in different groups is selected. Figure 8D shows images grouped individually.
Nonetheless, selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis and display, is an ordinary mental process (see Electric Power Group). Thus, the “selecting and setting” steps may be construed as a further abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping.
The selected information for identifying a group, i.e. a group identifier, is “imparted” to each image in accordance with selected setting/grouping condition, “in accordance with the DICOM standard.” The specification discloses that it is purely conventional to group medical images into groups such as by patient, modality (i.e. SPS), inspection date/time, and inspection type. In particular, DICOM series information may be added to the header of medical image files to form a series grouping. The specification discloses that in addition to grouping medical images by series, medical images may be grouped by protocol or by SPS (i.e. modality), Grouping medical images, including original images and duplicate or combined images, by selecting a grouping condition and assigning a group identifier to each image is process that merely organizes this human activity. This type of activity, i.e. grouping images by patient, modality, or series, is similar to the “filtering content”, found to be abstract in BASCOM. Grouping patient images includes conduct that would normally occur when managing a patient’s medical images, even according to the specification. As such, the claims recite an abstract idea within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO
The claims recite limitations that include additional elements beyond those that encompass the abstract idea above including:
transmitting the original medical images to which the group information is imparted and the edited medical images to which the group information is imparted to the external image storage device.
However, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of that idea in accordance with the MPEP. (see MPEP 2106.05)
Transmitting medical images that include a series identifier in the DICOM header using conventional techniques including transmitting and receiving data over a generic network, is an insignificant extra-solution activity. The specification discloses that the image is transmitted to a PACS. Nothing in the claim recites specific limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network, database or Internet. Similarly, the specification is silent with respect to these kinds of improvements. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of conventional computer functions, as is the case here, does not qualify as a particular machine, nor does the recitation of a generic computer impose meaningful limits in the claimed process. (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract image grouping process into a practical application of that process.
STEP 2B
The additional elements identified above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract image grouping process. Transmitting information, for example over a network, is a well-understood, routine and conventional computer function – i.e. receiving or transmitting data over a network as in Symantec, TLI, OIP and buySAFE.
The additional structural elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer structure (i.e. a radiation imaging apparatus comprising a setting unit, a grouping unit, and a communication unit). Each of the above components are disclosed in the specification as being purely conventional and/or known in the industry. The “units” are construed by the Examiner as a “program stored in the memory unit, the processing/control unit functions as each functional unit shown in Fig. 1” when it executes the program (0036 as published). Because the specification describes these additional elements in general terms, without describing particulars, Examiner concludes that the claim limitations may be broadly, but reasonably construed, as reciting well-understood, routine and conventional computer components and techniques. The specification describes the elements in a manner that indicates that they are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars in order to satisfy U.S.C. 112. Considered as an ordered combination the limitations recited in the claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered individually. As such, the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide significantly more than the abstract image grouping process, or an inventive concept.
The dependent claims, relative to Claim 1, add additional features including:
those that merely serve to further narrow the abstract idea above such as:
further limiting the criteria for grouping (Claims 2, 4 - 7);
further limiting the timing of setting (Claim 9);
further limiting the identification to DICOM series information (Claim 16);
those that recite additional abstract ideas;
switching between setting the original and edited images to be in the same group or in different groups; (Claim 20);
imparting different grouping to the original and edited images having the same protocol; (Claim 21);
those that recite well-understood, routine and conventional activity or computer functions such as:
memory and output units (Claims 10, 11);
acquiring setting information from the external apparatus; (Claim 14);
those that recite insignificant extra-solution activities;
or those that are an ancillary part of the abstract idea.
The limitations recited in the dependent claims, in combination with those recited in the independent claims add nothing that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, or that amounts to significantly more. These elements merely narrow the abstract idea, recite additional abstract ideas, or append conventional activity to the abstract process. As such, the additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or provide an inventive concept that transforms the claims into a patent eligible invention.
The apparatus claims are no different from the method claims in substance. “The equivalence of the method, system and media claims is readily apparent.” “The only difference between the claims is the form in which they were drafted.” (Bancorp). The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer, while the apparatus claims recite generic computer components configured to implement the same idea. Specifically, Claims 1, 2, 4 – 7, 9 – 11, 14, 16 and 19 - 21 merely add the generic hardware noted above that nearly every computer will include. The apparatus claim’s requirement that the same method be performed with a programmed computer does not alter the method’s patentability under U.S.C. 101 (In re Grams). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The Prior Art
The prior art discloses selecting and setting grouping condition for grouping original and edited medical images, generating group information and imparting the group information onto the original and edited medical images; and transmitting the original medical images to which the group information is imparted to an external image storage device.
However, the prior art does not disclose or suggest grouping medical images based on a reconstruction relationship – i.e. an image processing protocol.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 July, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The U.S.C. 101 Rejection
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a method of organizing human activity; in particular, that the claims are “not directed merely to grouping and transmitting images”. Applicant asserts a “specific improvement in how medical imaging data is edited, organized, and stored based on clinical relevance, particularly reconstruction relationships”. Applicant asserts that grouping images as claimed “enables accurate association and retrieval”; and “solves a known problem in radiological workflows”. Examiner notes the problems described in the specification include the time it take to confirm an image reclassification, or image displayed in unintended groups. These are not technological problems. Improving the accuracy of associations is not a technological improvement, but is rather an improvement to the abstract grouping process. Whether data is organized, grouped or filtered for human comprehension or nor does not alter the analysis.
Grouping images is similar to the filtering in BASCOM. In Bascom Global the Court found that the claims recite an abstract idea – filtering content – “because it is a long-standing, well-known method of organizing human activity, similar to concepts previously found to be abstract”. Similarly here, grouping images invokes filtering based on the grouping condition.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPUB 2012/0041785 A1 to Tsunomori et al. discloses a system and method for grouping medical images using a group ID.
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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to John A. Pauls whose telephone number is (571) 270-5557. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Fri. 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197.
Official replies to this Office action may now be submitted electronically by registered users of the EFS-Web system. Information on EFS-Web tools is available on the Internet at: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/index.jsp. An EFS-Web Quick-Start Guide is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portal/efs/quick-start.pdf.
Alternatively, official replies to this Office action may still be submitted by any one of fax, mail, or hand delivery. Faxed replies should be directed to the central fax at (571) 273-8300. Mailed replies should be addressed to “Commissioner for Patents, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.” Hand delivered replies should be delivered to the “Customer Service Window, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.”
/JOHN A PAULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Date: 16 October, 2025