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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 10/24/2025. Claims 1, 3-9, 14, 16, and 17 are amended, , and claims 15 and 18 have been previously canceled. Claims 1-14 and 16-17 are currently pending.
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 1-14 and 16-17 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a medical imaging device configured to perform the imaging of the first subject according to the medical imaging modality of the medical image imaging apparatus” is not supported by the specification. First, the Examiner notes that there is no mention of a “medical imaging device” in the specification whatsoever. Next, the Examiner points to pages 8-9 of the specification which states, in part, “As illustrated in FIG. 2, the MRI apparatus 4 includes the gantry 100, the couch 107, and the console apparatus 33. The gantry 100 includes an image imaging system related to the imaging of the subject P to be examined with the MRI apparatus 4. The exterior of the gantry 100 may include the authentication sensor, the optical camera, and an operation panel for the movement of the couch 107 or the couchtop 1071, for example. Specifically, the gantry 100 includes a static magnetic field magnet 101, a static magnetic field power supply (not illustrated), a gradient coil 103, a gradient magnetic field power supply 105, a couch control circuitry 109 that controls the couch 107, a transmission coil 115, a transmission circuitry 113, a reception circuitry 119, and an imaging control circuitry 121. The gantry 10 may include a reception coil 117.” While the described structure appears to sufficiently describe a medical device (i.e., gantry) that may perform MRI images. There does not appear to be sufficient support for a device configured to perform imaging according to all of the listed modalities (e.g., CT, ultrasound, etc.)
Independent claims 16 and 17 feature limitations similar to those of claim 1, and are therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Dependent claims are rejected as well since they inherit the limitations of the independent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-l4 and 16-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a medical imaging device configured to perform imaging of the first subject according to the medical imaging modality of the medical image imaging apparatus” is indefinite. First, the Examiner notes that the term “medical imaging device” does not appear in the specification, and replaces the previous term of “medical imaging scanner” which also does not appear in the specification. For sake of examination, the Examiner shall interpret them as being the same. Next, the Examiner points to page 12 of the Applicant’s response which states, in part, “Further, Applicant notes that as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, each of an X-Ray CT apparatus, an X-ray diagnosis apparatus, an MRI apparatus, an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus, and a nuclear medicine diagnostic apparatus is commonly referred to as a “scanner” as the patient is scanned, for example with X-rays to obtain imaging results.”(emphasis added) Based on this logic, the “medical imaging device (e.g., medical imaging scanner) is one and the same as the X-Ray CT apparatus, etc., which results in the claim essentially stating, in part, “A medical image imaging apparatus being one of an X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) apparatus…comprising: a medical imaging device (i.e., X-Ray CT apparatus). The issue is further muddled by the fact that the claims of 03/10/2025 stated “A medical image imaging system comprising: a medical image imaging apparatus…and processing circuitry…”, which further demonstrates that the “medical imaging device” and “medical image imaging apparatus” are the same. In summary, it is unclear as to how an X-Ray CT apparatus may be comprised of an X-Ray CT apparatus. As stated in the Interview Summary of 10/24/2025, the Examiner suggests simply amending the language to coincide with the specification’s language regarding a gantry and couchtop (see page 5 of specification).
Regarding claim 1, the language “…perform a second operation… being other than an operation allowed when the operation authority is assigned to the second user terminal” is indefinite. The Examiner points to page 4 which states, in part, “The predetermined operations are checking and operating about images and patient information related to other subjects who are different from the subject whose image is currently imaged in the medical image imaging apparatus 3. The predetermined operations include, for example, checking the patient information of another subject who is different from the subject whose image is currently being imaged by the medical image imaging apparatus 3, making an appointment of the patient information about the other subject and changing the patient information, checking MR images related to the other subject, post-processes (such as image processing) of the medical images generated by the medical image imaging apparatus 3 regarding the other subject, and transferring the medical image related to the other subject from the medical image imaging apparatus 3 to a server apparatus or the like.” These operations appear to be unrelated to operation authority, and are therefore always “allowed”. Since these operations appear to always be “allowed” regardless of the operation authority, it is unclear as to what “other” operations are being performed. The Examiner suggests amending the language to something along the lines of “…perform a second operation…being other than operations related to (or granted by) the operation authority”.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “…a third time at which the medical imaging device, being a magnetic resonance imaging device, a reception coil is detached from a coil port at the couchtop…” is indefinite. The limitation is preceded by claim 1’s limitation “A medical image imaging apparatus being one of an X-ray Computed Tomography apparatus…and comprising: a medical imaging device configured to perform the imaging of the first subject according to the medical imaging modality of the medical image imaging apparatus…”. It is unclear as to how an X-ray apparatus (or any of the apparatus listed aside from the MRI apparatus) may be comprised of an MRI device, to perform operations for modalities such as an x-ray, as x-ray and MRIs involve different technologies (i.e., x-rays vs magnets).
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 1-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1 recites (additional elements crossed out):
A medical image imaging apparatus
assign an operation authority for the medical image imaging apparatus to a first user
The above limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. That is, other than reciting the steps as being performed by a “medical imaging apparatus”, comprised of a “medical imaging device” and “processing circuitry”, and “terminals” nothing in the claim precludes the steps as being described as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the “medical image imaging apparatus”, comprised of a “medical imaging device” and “processing circuitry”, and “terminals” language, the limitations describe a system for controlling a medical imaging scanner to perform imaging of a first subject, determining progress in a workflow related to the imaging (i.e., an observation), assigning authority to a first user based on the progress, and allowing a second user to perform operations on imaging/data of a second subject while the first user is performing a first operation. An analog example would observing that a first technician has entered an examination room with a patient, allowing the first technician to use the imaging apparatus in the room, and allowing a second technician to perform operations related to a second patient while the first technician is using the imaging apparatus. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of “medical image imaging apparatus”, comprised of a “medical imaging scanner” and “processing circuitry”, and “terminals” to perform the steps. In regards to the “medical image imaging apparatus” comprised of a “medical imaging scanner” and “processing circuitry”, it merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., medical imaging technology). The additional element of “terminals” is recited at a high level of generality (see at least pages 3 and 8) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. The claims also recite “control the medical imaging device to perform the imaging of the first subject, in response to inputs received via the first user terminal”, however, this element is merely extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these 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. The claims are therefore still directed to an abstract idea.
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, the additional elements of using “terminals” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the “medical image imaging apparatus”, comprised of a “medical imaging device” and “processing circuitry”, and “terminals” contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) and does not integrate the judicial exception or provide significantly more. Moreover, the element of “control the medical imaging device to perform the imaging of the first subject, in response to inputs received via the first user terminal” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because in addition to being extra-solution activity, it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function as evidenced by Official Notice as the control of an imaging apparatus to perform an imaging operation is a routine operation in the realm of radiology. The performance of routine and conventional functions does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Claims 16 and 17 feature limitations similar to those of claim 1, and are therefore also found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-14 are dependent on claim 1, and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, they are also found to be directed to the same abstract idea. Claims 3-9 merely further define the timings used in determining a progress point in the workflow. Claims 2, 10, 12, and 13 merely describe the assigning and removal of operation authorities. Clam 11 merely describes the storage of “imaging conditions” (which appear to be undefined by the specification) from a plurality of users, and the assignment of an imaging condition selected by a user. Claim 14 merely further describes the operations related to the operation authority. The dependent claims have not been found to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract idea since they merely further narrow the abstract idea, or link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the dependent claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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) 1-7, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross (US 2018/0308564) in view of Fano (US 2003/0119446).
Regarding claim 1, Ross discloses A medical image imaging apparatus… comprising:
A medical imaging device configured to perform imaging of the first subject according to the medical imaging modality of the medial image imaging apparatus; and
processing circuitry configured to:
automatically determine a progress in a workflow related to the imaging of the first subject by the medical imaging device; and
assign an operation authority for the medical image imaging apparatus to first user terminal among a plurality of user terminals in accordance with the determined progress; and
control the medical imaging device to perform the imaging of the first subject, in response to inputs received via the first user terminal,
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to perform control to allow a second user terminal, not given the operation authority, to perform a second operation to an image or patient information of a second subject, even while the first user terminal is performing a first operation related to the assigned operation authority, the second operation to the image or the patient information of the second subject being not subject to a restriction by the assigned operation authority assigned to the first user terminal and being other than an operation allowed when the operation authority is assigned to the second user terminal
See Paras. [0062] – “For example, nurse may wish to perform an EKG on a patient. When nurse 100 walks up to POC cart/workstation 104, smartphone 102 is connected to interface module 110 and server 116. This allows smartphone 102, for example, to mirror EKG controls on monitor 108, and allow the nurse to manipulate the EKG machine 900 using the keyboard on the POC cart/workstation 104. In this case, the nurse 100 does not need to take the smartphone 102 out of their pocket.” The Examiner asserts that determining that the nurse is within connection range equates to determining a progress in the workflow related to imaging of a subject. Also see Para. [0064] – “In step 1000, when nurse 100 is in proximity to POC cart/workstation 104, smartphone 102 is connected (wired or wirelessly) to the single board computer of interface module 110. Upon connection, smartphone 102 launches a mobile application (step 1002) that is designed to control and/or monitor EKG machine 900. Once the mobile application is launched, smartphone 102 performs authentication (step 1004) of the nurse 100. In step 1006, smartphone 102 determines if nurse 100 is authenticated. If nurse 100 is not authenticated, then smartphone 102 terminates the session in step 608. If, however, nurse 100 is authenticated, then smartphone 102 executes step 1010 and displays the mobile application control features.” This indicates that authorized nurses (i.e., a first or second user terminal) may allow for control of the EKG machine. In other words, authorized nurse 1 or authorized nurse 2 may be granted control. Also see Para. [0060] – “This information can be requests for database information or new information for updating the database. In step 816, POC cart/workstation 104 sends this input to smartphone 120, and in step 818 the smartphone 102 sends this input to database server 116. This process allows nurse 100 to access database information specific to a patient, and update the patients information.”, and Para. [0067] – “In step 1024, the EKG results are sent by the single board computer to the smartphone 102, and eventually to the server 116 in order to update the patient database with the results.” One of ordinary skill in the art would ascertain that this, coupled with the aforementioned paragraphs, indicates that a first user is allowed to view EKG results (i.e., perform a second operation) even while the EKG device is in use by a second user (i.e., operation associated with operation authority) since the first user may either have received the EKG results on their smartphone or request the results from the database.
Ross does not explicitly disclose the medical image imaging apparatus being one of an X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) apparatus, an ultrasound diagnosis apparatus, a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) apparatus, a Positron Emission Tomography (PET) apparatus, an X-ray diagnosis apparatus, and a nuclear medicine diagnosis apparatus (See at least Fano, Para. [0055] – “In such an application, an operator of one of the subscriber units 601 and 603 can attempt to execute control commands to the MRI device 605, albeit after the MRI 605 establishes that the two subscriber devices are eligible to control its operation. By virtue of the MRI device's detection of short range wireless signals from one or more subscriber units, the MRI device 605 preferably queries the subscriber units it hears for validation data. Validation data would include any indicia of authorization to use and control the MRI device 605 which can be stored within the memory or unique identifier data structure stored within the MRI device 605.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ross to utilize the teachings of Fano since both Ross and Fano are in the same field of endeavor (i.e., control of medical devices), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.)
Regarding claim 2, Ross discloses The medical image imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in response to the processing circuitry determining that a time after the imaging of the first subject is the progress point in the workflow, the processing circuitry is further configured to remove the operation authority assigned to the first user terminal. (See [0038] – “When the nurse 100 leaves the room, the smartphone 102 goes out of communication range and disconnects from POC cart/workstation 104.”, and Para. [0061] – “In another example, POC cart/workstation 104 can include other peripheral devices such as medical devices.”)
Regarding claim 3, Roth discloses The medical image imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the progress point, which is related to the imaging of the first subject and is a determined to be a time within one of (1) a room entry guidance phase during which the first subject is guided into an examination room where the medical image imaging scanner is disposed, (2) a placement phase during which the first subject is placed on a couchtop of a couch in the medical imaging device, (3) a movement phase during which the couchtop is moved to an opening of a gantry included in the medical imaging device, and (4) a setting phase during which an imaging condition related to the imaging is set in the examination room. (See Para. [0038] – “When the nurse 100 enters the room, smartphone 102 connects to the POC cart/workstation 104 in close proximity.”)
Regarding claim 4, Ross discloses The medical image imaging apparatus according to claim 3, wherein processing circuitry is further configured to determine that the determined progress point is during the room entry guidance phase by determining a first time at which the first user terminal approaches within a range of a predetermined distance from the examination room, a second time at which the first user terminal is placed at a predetermined place before the examination room, or a third time at which the first subject or a user who operates the first user terminal is authenticated about entry into the examination room. (See Para. [0038] – “When the nurse 100 enters the room, smartphone 102 connects to the POC cart/workstation 104 in close proximity.”)
Claims 5-7 are in relation to unselected options of claim 3 (i.e., items 2-4 of claim 3) and therefore lack patentable weight. The claims are therefore considered to be anticipated by Ross (see at least Para. [0038]).
Regarding claim 10, Ross discloses The medical image imaging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to assign the operation authority to a third user terminal related to a third subject whose image is imaged subsequent to the first subject in response to removal of the operation authority from the first user terminal. (See [0038] – “When the nurse 100 leaves the room, the smartphone 102 goes out of communication range and disconnects from POC cart/workstation 104.”, and Para. [0062] - “For example, nurse may wish to perform an EKG on a patient. When nurse 100 walks up to POC cart/workstation 104, smartphone 102 is connected to interface module 110 and server 116. This allows smartphone 102, for example, to mirror EKG controls on monitor 108, and allow the nurse to manipulate the EKG machine 900 using the keyboard on the POC cart/workstation 104. In this case, the nurse 100 does not need to take the smartphone 102 out of their pocket.” The Examiner asserts that the claim language merely equates to mere duplication of parts. See MPEP §2144 VI B, and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671; 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960), where it is stated that "the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced…". As no unexpended result is produced by assigning the operation authority to a subsequent terminal, there is no patentable significance in doing so. A person having ordinary skill in the art would further see this as advantageous as it would achieve the predictable result of allowing different users to connect when the POC cart/workstation of Ross is available.)
Regarding claim 11, Ross discloses The medical image imaging apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a memory configured to, in response to a plurality of imaging conditions related to a third subject whose image is imaged subsequent to the first subject being input by the plurality of user terminals, store the input plurality of conditions therein, wherein in response to the operation authority being assigned to a third user terminal, of the plurality of user terminals, related to the third subject whose image is imaged subsequent to the first subject, the processing circuitry is further configured to assign an imaging condition selected by a user of the third user terminal, from among the plurality of imaging conditions, input by the plurality of user terminal, as an imaging related to the subject whose image is imaged subsequent to the subject, based on an instruction from the third user terminal related to the third subject whose image is imaged subsequent to the first subject. (See Para. [0022] – “In addition to retrieving data from the database, nurse 100 can also input information (e.g. patient information) through the keyboard/mouse/scanner, and send this information to server 116 to update the database.”, and Para. [0061] – “This type of POC cart/workstation 104 allows nurse 100 to control and/or monitor the EKG machine from POC cart/workstation 104 and upload the EKG results to database server 116.” The Examiner notes that “imaging condition” is not defined by the specification, and is therefore interpreted as any type of information (in this case, patient information))
Regarding claim 14, Ross discloses The medical image imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operation related to the assigned operation authority is at least one of an operation of patient information related to the first subject during the imaging by the medical imaging device, wherein the patient information includes an imaging condition, an operation of the patient information related to the first subject whose image is imaged by the medical imaging device, an operation related to start, pause, and stop of the imaging by the medical imaging device, and an operation related to control of a couch in the medical imaging device. (See Para. [0057] – “For example, nurse 100 may require information about a certain patient. When nurse 100 walks up to POC cart/workstation 104, smartphone 102 automatically connects to interface module 110 and server 116. This allows smartphone 102 to mirror medical information on monitor 108, and allow the nurse to access and possible manipulate ( e.g. update) this medical information using the keyboard on POC cart/workstation 104. In this example, nurse 100 does not need to take smartphone 102 out of his/her pocket.” The Examiner notes that the term “imaging condition” is undefined by the specification, and will therefore be interpreted as any type of data.)
Claims 16 and 17 feature limitations similar to those of claim 1, and are therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross and Fano, and in further view of Niklewski (US 2017/0185732)
Regarding claim 8, Ross and Fano do not explicitly disclose The medical image imaging apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the time after the imaging of the first subject as the progress point in the workflow, which is a time within a room exit guidance phase during which the first subject is guided from an examination room in which the medical imaging device is disposed, to outside of the examination room. (See Niklewski, Para. [0040] – “After the medical procedure (e.g., surgery) is complete, as the patient exits the procedure room and transitions to a post procedure room (block 812), procedure devices (510) may automatically disconnect from patient connector (508) and post procedure devices (514) may automatically connect (block 814) with patient connector (508).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ross and Fano to utilize the teachings of Niklewski since it would allow for sets of devices to be configured for a particular patient without manual intervention.)
Regarding claim 9, in light of the 112 rejections above, Ross and Niklewski disclose The medical image imaging apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine that the determined progress point is during the room exit guidance phase includes a first time at which a couchtop of a couch in the medical imaging device is separated from a center of an opening of a gantry in the medical imaging device, a second time at which when the couchtop descends toward a floor surface of the examination room, a third time at which the medical imaging device, being a magnetic resonance imaging scanner, a reception coil is detached from a coil port at the couchtop, a fourth time at which separation of the first subject from the couchtop is specified based on an output from an optical camera, a fifth time at which the first user terminal has reached a predetermined distance from the gantry or the couch, or a sixth time at which an end of the imaging is input in the first user terminal. (See Niklewski, Para. [0040] – “After the medical procedure (e.g., surgery) is complete, as the patient exits the procedure room and transitions to a post procedure room (block 812), procedure devices (510) may automatically disconnect from patient connector (508) and post procedure devices (514) may automatically connect (block 814) with patient connector (508).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ross and Fano to utilize the teachings of Niklewski since it would allow for sets of devices to be configured for a particular patient without manual intervention.)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross and Fano, and in further view of Khoo (US 2003/0227745).
Regarding claim 12, Ross and Fano do not explicitly disclose The medical image imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in response to the processing circuitry determining that an operation is not input for a predetermined time in the first user terminal to which the operation authority is assigned, the processing circuitry is further configured to remove the operation authority from the first user terminal. (See Khoo, Para. [0052] – “In step 420 it is determined whether the connection between the two devices is down. The connection can be terminated through a variety of conditions, such as a device being placed out of range of the other device, inactivity for an extended period of time, or an explicit disconnect command from the user.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ross and Fano to utilize the teachings of Khoo since it would ensure that the medical image imaging apparatus is available for other users.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross and Fano, and in further view of Lee (US 2018/0183840).
Regarding claim 13, Ross and Fano do not explicitly disclose The medical image imaging apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a communication interface configured to, in response to determining that an operation is not input for a predetermined time in the first user terminal to which the operation authority is assigned and an event related to a removal of the operation authority occurs in the medical image imaging apparatus, transmit a request for removing the operation authority to the first user terminal to which the operation authority is assigned, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to remove the operation authority from the first user terminal in response to reception of approval for the request. (See Lee, Para. [0041] – “Referring to FIG. 2B, when, in an act 225, the near field communication connection is lost (e.g., when the user moves the client device 100 away from the near field communication antenna 112 of the server device 105), the client device 100 may determine, in an act 230, whether it is connected to the service (e.g., the video display service provided by the server device 105); if it is not, it may take no further action. If the client device 100 is connected to the service, the client device 100 may display to the user, in an act 235, a user interface asking the user whether to disconnect from the service. If the client device 100 determines, in an act 240, that the user has instructed the client device 100 to disconnect from the service (e.g., by clicking “Yes” in response to a prompt asking “Do you want to disconnect from the remote video display?”), it may proceed, in an act 245, to disconnect from the service, e.g., by sending a connection termination message to the server device 105, freeing up the service for use by other clients.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ross and Fano to utilize the teachings of Lee since it would allow users to manually disconnect.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant argues that reference Ross does not disclose “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to allow a second user terminal, not given the operation authority, to perform a second operation to an image or patient information of a second subject, even while the first user terminal is performing a first operation related to the assigned operation authority, the second operation to the image or the patient information of the second subject being not subject to a restriction by the assigned operation authority assigned to the first user terminal”. This is not persuasive as Ross was found to disclose the limitation for at least the reasoning set forth in the body of the rejection above. As indicated above, Ross discloses authenticating users to control an EKG machine. Ross further discloses sending EKG results to a user’s smartphone. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this would allow for user’s not currently in control of the EKG machine to review EKG results while another user is in control.
For at least the reasons listed above, the 103 rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant argues that the claims provide an improvement to an existing technology and a technical solution to a technical problem by allowing other subjects’ information to be accessed while a first subject is being imaged. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in previous actions, this is not a technological improvement. The processing capabilities of any involved computing devices (including the medical image imaging apparatus) remain unchanged. Further, Applicant’s assertion that this feature “improv[es] the overall efficiency and productivity of the medical imaging apparatus” is made after the fact, and there is no mention within the specification of this alleged benefit whatsoever. The claims are merely directed to providing particular privileges to users in regards to a medical imaging device. This does not result in improved performance of the medical imaging apparatus. The medical imaging apparatus does not perform imaging any faster, or provide more detailed images. If anything, the claims merely provide an improvement to the imaging workflow (a business method) by allowing users to perform actions such as reviewing a second patient’s information while a first patient is being imaged (as disclosed in page 4 of specification).
Applicant’s argument’s that the claims are analogous to Diamond v. Diehr due to controlling a medical imaging device to perform imaging of a first subject is not persuasive. Said controlling is recited at a high level of generality and is merely insignificant post-solution activity, as it is merely enabling the performance of routine functions by the medical imaging device.
Applicant’s argument regarding the use of specific machines is not persuasive. The alleged particular system of a medical image imaging apparatus merely serves as a vessel for executing the abstract idea, and therefore merely links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
For at least the reasons stated above, the 101 rejection is maintained.
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 KYLE G ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9261. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 4:30 EST; Friday 7:00-11:00 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached on 571-272-6702. 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.
/KYLE G ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685