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
The IDS of 11/04/2025 has been considered.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In light of the amendments, claims 1-12, 15, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
In light of the amendments, claims do not have art rejections.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 12/05/2025, the following has occurred: claims 1, 15, and 20 have been amended; claims 2-12, 16-19, and 21 have remained unchanged; claims 13-14 have been canceled; and no claims have been added.
Claims 1-12 and 15-21 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 11/29/2021
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Applicant argues that the claims provide a technical improvement of providing results to another user via interaction with a GUI. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant. The elements associated with the providing of data via an interaction with the GUI have been proven in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection section to be additional elements, but to also be well-known elements based on publications already existing at the time of this invention.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant argues that there are no results of an analysis being displayed using the Oyama reference from previous claim 13. Examiner however respectfully disagrees as Oyama does teach aspects of previous claim 13, see rejection of previous claim 13. Applicant further states that claim 14, which is now recited in the independent claims, is not taught using the Carey reference. Examiner however respectfully disagrees with this statement as the Carey reference was used to teach of a feature which is used to display data on a display. The data being related to results of an analysis process was already taught in the Kikuchi reference.
Applicant further states that Carey does not teach of effecting a display on another display through a GUI. Examiner however would like to point out that the claims do not necessarily reflect this statement. The claims recite that there is “a display” but then when referring to the display associated with the first user, but the claims also recite “the display” when referring to the second user. Therefore the same display is being referred to. Applicant appears to be arguing that there are different displays and different devices for each person, however the claims do not reflect this.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-12 and 15-21 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) without significantly more. Claims 1-19 and 21 are drawn to an apparatus and claim 20 is drawn to a method, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-12 and 15-21 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a) a medical information display apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to:
1) obtain, from b) an analysis apparatus, DICOM data of a plurality of execution results respectively corresponding to a plurality of analysis processes, the DICOM data being sent by the analysis apparatus every predetermined length of time or every time content of the execution results changes, the execution results being obtained by performing the plurality of analysis processes relating to at least one type of c) analysis application on a plurality of series of medical images, and the plurality of analysis processes being image processes for analyzing a particular disease or symptoms;
2) identify a type of an analysis application applied to the DICOM data of each of the plurality of execution results by reading the DICOM data of each of the plurality of execution results;
3) generate, using information indicating the identified type of analysis application, layout information indicating in which display section provided at least in a first display area the DICOM data of each of the plurality of execution results is to be displayed; and
4) display, on d) a display terminal, the first display area and a second display area differing from the first display area, wherein
5) if a manually performed analysis process is included in the plurality of analysis processes, the processing circuitry displays a first result of the manually performed analysis process of the plurality of results only on the display of a first user who instructed the manual performance, and
the processing circuitry is further configured to
6) summarize the DICOM data of each of the plurality of execution results by the type of analysis application and place the summarized DICOM data in a display section corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of execution results in the first display area using the generated layout information, an input parameter of each of the plurality of analysis processes and a mark indicating a performance state of each of the plurality of analysis processes by the analysis apparatus and/or a sending state of each of the plurality of analysis processes from the analysis apparatus being placed as the DICOM data of the execution results;
7) identifiably place input images subjected to the plurality of analysis processes in the second display area by the type of analysis application;
8) display a GUI component with an instruction to allow the first result viewable on the display of a second user differing from the first user; and
9) display the first result on the display of the second user when the GUI component is pressed.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) obtain DICOM data of a plurality of execution results respectively corresponding to a plurality of analysis processes, the DICOM data being sent by the analysis apparatus every predetermined length of time or every time content of the execution results changes, the execution results being obtained by performing the plurality of analysis processes relating to at least one type of analysis on a plurality of series of medical images, and the plurality of analysis processes being image processes for analyzing a particular disease or symptoms, 2) identify a type of analysis applied to the DICOM data of each of the plurality of execution results by reading the DICOM data of each of the plurality of execution results, 3) generate, using information indicating the identified type of analysis, layout information indicating in which display section provided at least in a first display area the DICOM data of each of the plurality of execution results is to be displayed, 4) display the first display area and a second display area differing from the first display area, wherein 5) if a manually performed analysis process is included in the plurality of analysis processes, displays a first result of the manually performed analysis process of the plurality of results only for a first user who instructed the manual performance, and 6) summarize the DICOM data of each of the plurality of execution results by the type of analysis and place the summarized DICOM data in a display section corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of execution results in the first display area using the generated layout information, an input parameter of each of the plurality of analysis processes and a mark indicating a performance state of each of the plurality of analysis processes and/or a sending state of each of the plurality of analysis processes being placed as the DICOM data of the execution results. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes a way to organize and display DICOM data. Independent claim 20 recites similar limitations and is also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 2-12, 15-19, and 21 include all of the limitations of claim 1, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claim 6 adds the additional steps of “display a third display area in which a list of examination records respectively corresponding to a plurality of examinations is displayed” and “display the first display area and the second display area relating to the single examination record if a single examination record is selected from the plurality of examination records”; claim 9 adds the additional steps of “select a display-targeted analysis process from the plurality of analysis processes in accordance with a role and/or a location of a user who is using the display terminal” and “display the mark indicating the number of display-targeted analysis processes and whether the display-targeted analysis process is being performed, has not yet been performed, is successful, or has failed”; claim 12 adds the additional steps of “select a display-targeted analysis process from the plurality of analysis processes in accordance with a role and/or a location of a user who is using the display terminal” and “display an icon expressing the display-targeted analysis process”; claim 15 adds the additional steps of “select an analysis process suitable for a location of a user who is using the display from the plurality of analysis processes” and “display a result of the selected analysis process on the display of the user”; claim 16 adds the additional step of “select an analysis process that is compliant with guideline adopted by a hospital or an academic society to which a user using the display terminal belongs”; claim 19 adds the additional steps of “select a display-targeted analysis process from the plurality of analysis processes in accordance with a role and/or a location of a user who is using the display” and “display a running time and/or a remaining time of the display-targeted analysis process among the plurality of analysis processes on the display that is being used by the user”; and claim 21 adds the additional step of “arrange the DICOM data of two or more of the plurality of execution results relating to an identical type of analysis application in a single display section assigned for the analysis application in the first display area in accordance with predetermined rules regarding a processing order”. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-11, 17-18, and 21 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 2-12, 15-19, and 21 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) a medical information display apparatus comprising processing circuitry, b) an analysis apparatus, c) analysis application, and d) a display terminal to perform the claimed steps.
The claims also include the additional element steps of 7) identifiably place input images subjected to the plurality of analysis processes in the second display area by the type of analysis application, 8) display a GUI component with an instruction to allow the first result viewable on the display of a second user differing from the first user, and 9) display the first result on the display of the second user when the GUI component is pressed.
The a) medical information display apparatus comprising processing circuitry, c) analysis application, and d) display terminal in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0028] where there is a generic recitation of processing circuitry, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore, the b) analysis apparatus adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Lastly, the steps of 7) identifiably place input images subjected to the plurality of analysis processes in the second display area by the type of analysis application, 8) display a GUI component with an instruction to allow the first result viewable on the display of a second user differing from the first user, and 9) display the first result on the display of the second user when the GUI component is pressed add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
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 a) a medical information display apparatus comprising processing circuitry, b) an analysis apparatus, c) analysis application, and d) a display terminal and using the additional element steps of 7) identifiably place input images subjected to the plurality of analysis processes in the second display area by the type of analysis application, 8) display a GUI component with an instruction to allow the first result viewable on the display of a second user differing from the first user, and 9) display the first result on the display of the second user when the GUI component is pressed amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity) that does not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The current invention generates displays on a display utilizing a) a medical information display apparatus comprising processing circuitry, c) analysis application, and d) a display terminal, thus these components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Furthermore, the b) analysis apparatus in these steps add insignificant extra-solution activity/pre-solution activity in the form of WURC activity to the abstract idea. The following is an example of a court decision demonstrating computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g. see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. – similarly, the current invention recites storing DICOM data in a database and/or electronic memory, and retrieving the DICOM data from storage in order to display data.
The following State of the Art Publication demonstrates the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional elements: 7) identifiably place input images subjected to the plurality of analysis processes in the second display area by the type of analysis application, e.g. see paragraph [0035] of U.S. 2015/0046184 to Cocco et al. where uploading images using a display area of an application is well-known.
Lastly, the following State of the Art Publication demonstrates the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional elements: 8) display a GUI component with an instruction to allow the first result viewable on the display of a second user differing from the first user, and 9) display the first result on the display of the second user when the GUI component is pressed, e.g. see paragraph [0036] of U.S. 2006/0031109 to LaRue, JR. et al. where the selecting of a graphical element to display more information is well-known.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components or extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-12 and 15-21 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-12, 15, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2017/0301092 to Kikuchi in view U.S. 2013/0054467 to Dala et al. further in view of U.S. 2022/0036284 to Oyama and further in view of U.S. 2022/0207454 to Carey et al.
As per claim 1, Kikuchi teaches a medical information display apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to:
--obtain, from an analysis apparatus, DICOM data of a plurality of execution results respectively corresponding to a plurality of analysis processes, the execution results being obtained by performing the plurality of analysis processes relating to at least one type of analysis application on a plurality of series of medical images, and the plurality of analysis processes being image processes for analyzing a particular disease or symptoms; (see: FIG. 7B where there are a plurality of execution results in the form of findings, diagnoses, and recommendations which are being obtained in order to be displayed. The findings here can be considered as a type of analysis process, and the diagnoses and the recommendations can also be considered as two other types of analysis processes. The series of medical images are shown on the left as representative images. Also see: FIG. 10. This data is DICOM data and it is being obtained from an apparatus (CT apparatus/MRI apparatus) as described in paragraph [0040])
--identify a type of an analysis application applied to the DICOM data of each of the plurality of execution results by reading the DICOM data of each of the plurality of execution results; (see: FIG. 7B where there are a plurality of execution results in the form of findings, diagnoses, and recommendations which are being obtained in order to be displayed. A type of analysis application applied to the DICOM data is being identified here before the data is displayed as the display displays information in certain sections of the display. Therefore, the data is being identified first, before displayed in its relevant section where the section corresponds with the analysis application)
--generate, using information indicating the identified type of analysis application, layout information indicating in which display section provided at least in a first display area the DICOM data of each of the plurality of execution results is to be displayed; (see: FIG. 7B where there are a plurality of execution results in the form of findings, diagnoses, and recommendations which are being obtained in order to be displayed. A layout information is being generated in order for the information in FIG. 7B to be displayed. This information is being displayed in what can be considered as a first display area) and
--display, on a display terminal, the first display area, (see: FIG. 7B where there is a first display area displaying the execution results (findings, diagnoses, and recommendations) is being displayed on a display. Also see: FIG. 10) and a second display area differing from the first display area, (see: FIG. 7B where there is a second display area displaying the input images 333a, 333b, and 333c. Also see: FIG. 7B where the first and second display areas differ. Also see: FIG. 10) wherein
--the processing circuitry is further configured to
--display the data of each of the plurality of execution results by the type of analysis application and place the summarized DICOM data in a display section corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of execution results in the first display area using the generated layout information, an input parameter of each of the plurality of analysis processes; (see: FIG. 7B where there are a plurality of execution results in the form of findings, diagnoses, and recommendations which are being obtained in order to be displayed. A layout information is being generated in order for the information in FIG. 7B to be displayed. This information is being displayed in what can be considered as a first display area. Also, there is display of an input parameter of each of the analysis processes of a representative image)
--identifiably place input images subjected to the plurality of analysis processes in the second display area by the type of analysis application (see: FIG. 7B where there is a second display area displaying the input images 333a, 333b, and 333c. Also see: FIG. 10. Images which are subjected to these analysis processes are being displayed on the left in their own section).
Kikuchi may not further, specifically teach:
1) --the DICOM data being sent by the analysis apparatus every predetermined length of time or every time content of the execution results changes;
2) --if a manually performed analysis process is included in the plurality of analysis processes, the processing circuitry displays a first result of the manually performed analysis process of the plurality of results only on the display of a first user who instructed the manual performance;
3) --display the data in the form of summarize the DICOM data;
4) --place the summarized DICOM data in a display section corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of execution results in the first display area using a mark indicating a performance state of each of the plurality of analysis processes by the analysis apparatus and/or a sending state of each of the plurality of analysis processes from the analysis apparatus being placed as the DICOM data of the execution results;
5) --display a GUI component with an instruction to allow the first result viewable on the display of a second user differing from the first user to; and
6) --display the first result on the display of the second user when the GUI component is pressed.
Dala et al. teaches:
1) --the DICOM data being sent by the analysis apparatus every predetermined length of time or every time content of the execution results changes; (see: paragraph [0059] where there is DICOM data. Also see: paragraph [0176] where there is displaying of data in real time. Thus, there is displaying of DICOM data in real time which would apply to every time content results change)
3) --display the data in the form of summarize the DICOM data; (see: paragraph [0127] where there is a summarizing of data. Also see: paragraph [0059] where there is DICOM data) and
4) --place the summarized DICOM data in a display section corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of execution results in the first display area using a mark indicating a performance state of each of the plurality of analysis processes by the analysis apparatus and/or a sending state of each of the plurality of analysis processes from the analysis apparatus being placed as the DICOM data of the execution results (see: paragraph [0059] where there is DICOM data. Also see: paragraph [0127] where there is a summarizing of data. Also see: paragraph [0166] where there is a displaying of a processing icon when data is being processed to be shown).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have 1) the DICOM data being sent by the analysis apparatus every predetermined length of time or every time content of the execution results changes and 4) place the summarized DICOM data in a display section corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of execution results in the first display area using a mark indicating a performance state of each of the plurality of analysis processes by the analysis apparatus and/or a sending state of each of the plurality of analysis processes from the analysis apparatus being placed as the DICOM data of the execution results as taught by Dala et al. in the apparatus as taught by Kikuchi with the motivation(s) of reviewing critical patient data to reach informed clinical decisions (see: paragraph [0003] of Dala et al.).
Furthermore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute 3) summarizing the DICOM data as taught by Dala et al. for displaying the data as disclosed by Kikuchi since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, Kikuchi already teaches of displaying data thus it would have been obvious to display a summarized version of this data as predictable results of displaying data would have been achieved. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Oyama teaches:
2) --if a manually performed analysis process is included in the plurality of analysis processes, the processing circuitry displays a first result of the manually performed analysis process of the plurality of results only on the display of a first user who instructed the manual performance (see: FIG. 7 and paragraph [0064] where if there is a manually performed process, a first result is being displayed on the display of the user. All of the processes here are manual processes and their results are displayed in FIG. 7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein 2) if a manually performed analysis process is included in the plurality of analysis processes, the processing circuitry displays a first result of the manually performed analysis process of the plurality of results only on the display of a first user who instructed the manual performance as taught by Oyama in the apparatus of Kikuchi and Dala et al. in combination since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Kikuchi and Dala et al. already teaches of displaying information to a user thus one could display other information to the user and still maintain the same functionality as the base reference Kikuchi, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Carey et al. teaches:
5) --display a GUI component with an instruction to allow the first result viewable on the display of a second user differing from the first user to; (see: paragraph [0033] where a second user can view the results on their device) and
6) --display the first result on the display of the second user when the GUI component is pressed (see: paragraph [0030] where the role cards can be selected/pressed in order to display results).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to 5) display a GUI component with an instruction to allow the first result viewable on the display of a second user differing from the first user to and 6) display the first result on the display of the second user when the GUI component is pressed as taught by Carey et al. in the apparatus of Kikuchi, Dala et al., and Oyama in combination since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Kikuchi, Dala et al., and Oyama teaches displaying completed tasks and adding a display of information to another device would maintain the same functionality as the combination of Kikuchi, Dala et al., and Oyama, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
As per claim 2, Kikuchi, Dala et al., Oyama, and Carey et al. in combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Kikuchi further teaches wherein
--the processing circuitry causes the first display area to display, as the plurality of execution results, identification information indicating that the analysis process is being performed, has not yet been performed, is successful, or has failed (see: FIG. 7B where there is a displaying of findings, diagnoses, and recommendations which is in itself the identification information indicating a successful analysis).
As per claim 3, Kikuchi, Dala et al., Oyama, and Carey et al. in combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Kikuchi further teaches wherein
--the processing circuitry causes the first display area to display an analyzed image, which is an execution result of performing analysis processing, and/or input parameters of analysis processing, as the plurality of execution results (see: FIG. 7B where there is a display of findings which are part of the execution result and are from an analyzed image).
As per claim 4, Kikuchi, Dala et al., Oyama, and Carey et al. in combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Kikuchi further teaches wherein
--the processing circuitry causes the second display area to display a plurality of representative images respectively corresponding to the plurality of series, (see: FIGS. 7B and 10 where there are representative images from a series in the form of 333a, 333b, and 333c) with an emphasis on a representative image of a series on which an analysis process selected from the plurality of analysis processes is performed (see: FIGS. 7B and 10 where there is an emphasis on a representative image from a series in the form of the top image).
As per claim 5, Kikuchi, Dala et al., Oyama, and Carey et al. in combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Kikuchi further teaches wherein
--the processing circuitry causes the first display area and the second display area to be displayed on one screen, side by side (see: FIGS. 7B and 10 where there is circuitry which displays the first (findings, diagnoses, and recommendations) and second (representative images) display areas at the same time).
As per claim 6, Kikuchi, Dala et al., Oyama, and Carey et al. in combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Kikuchi further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
--display a third display area in which a list of examination records respectively corresponding to a plurality of examinations is displayed; (see: 1000 of FIG. 10 where there is a third display area which displays a list of examination records based on date) and
--display the first display area and the second display area relating to a single examination record if the single examination record is selected from the plurality of examination records (see: FIG. 3A and paragraph [0047] where there is a selection of an examination record to display and the image (second display area) and the findings (first display area) are being displayed).
As per claim 7, Kikuchi, Dala et al., Oyama, and Carey et al. in combination teaches the apparatus of claim 6, see discussion of claim 6. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein
--each of the plurality of examination results includes a performance state of each of the analysis processes, (see: FIG. 7 and paragraph [0110] where there is a performance state for each of the processes in the form of a line which the finished processes go above the line) and
--for each of the examination records, the processing circuitry displays a mark summarizing the plurality of performance states relating to the examinations (see: FIG. 7 and paragraph [0110] where there is a mark in the form of a completed line which summarizes the plurality of performance states (whether or not the process has been successfully completed)).
As per claim 8, Kikuchi, Dala et al., Oyama, and Carey et al. in combination teaches the apparatus of claim 7, see discussion of claim 7. Oyama further teaches wherein
--the mark indicates a number of the analysis processes which have been processed (see: FIG. 7 and paragraph [0110] where there is a mark which indicates the number of analysis processes completed in the form of a completed line. Also, there is a mark which indicates the total number of analysis processes in the form of the “No.” of the last process) and whether an analysis process is being performed, has not yet been performed, is successful, or has failed (see: FIG. 7 and paragraph [0110] where the mark indicates which processes have been successful or not yet performed).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 9, Kikuchi, Dala et al., Oyama, and Carey et al. in combination teaches the apparatus of claim 7, see discussion of claim 7. Oyama further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
--display the mark indicating the number of analysis processes (see: FIG. 7 and paragraph [0110] where there is a mark which indicates the number of analysis processes completed in the form of a completed line. Also, there is a mark which indicates the total number of analysis processes in the form of the “No.” of the last process) and whether the analysis process is being performed, has not yet been performed, is successful, or has failed (see: FIG. 7 and paragraph [0110] where the mark indicates which processes have been successful or not yet performed).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 7, and incorporated herein.
Carey et al. further teaches:
--select a display-targeted analysis process from the plurality of analysis processes in accordance with a role and/or a location of a user who is using the display terminal; (see: paragraph [0033] where all tasks for a role are displayed upon selection of a task) and
--analysis processes as display-targeted analysis processes (see: paragraph [0033] where there is a display targeted analysis process in the form of displayed tasks based on the role of the user).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 10, Kikuchi, Dala et al., Oyama, and Carey et al. in combination teaches the apparatus of claim 9, see discussion of claim 9. Carey et al. further teaches wherein
--the role includes an emergency doctor, a radiologist, a researcher, and/or an administrator (see: paragraph [0019] where there is a first team of administrators).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 11, Kikuchi, Dala et al., Oyama, and Carey et al. in combination teaches the apparatus of claim 9, see discussion of claim 9. Carey et al. further teaches wherein
--the location includes a residential area, a hospital that the user works for, and/or an academic society (see: paragraphs [0082] and [0097] where there locations are being used as variables for display metrics. The location here could be a hospital).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 12, Kikuchi, Dala et al., Oyama, and Carey et al. in combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Carey et al. further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
--select a display-targeted analysis process from the plurality of analysis processes in accordance with a role and/or a location of a user who is using the display terminal; (see: paragraph [0033] where all tasks for a role are displayed upon selection of a task) and
--display an icon expressing the display-targeted analysis process (see: paragraph [0033] where there is a role card which is the icon).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 15, Kikuchi, Dala et al., Oyama, and Carey et al. in combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Carey et al. further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
--select an analysis process suitable for a location of a user who is using the display from the plurality of analysis processes; (see: paragraphs [0082] and [0097] where there locations are being used as variables for display metrics. The location here could be a hospital) and
--display a result of the selected analysis process on the display of the user (see: paragraphs [0127] where the information is being displayed based on the metrics, where the metrics can be location based as explained in paragraph [0082]).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 17, Kikuchi, Dala et al., Oyama, and Carey et al. in combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Carey et al. further teaches wherein
--the processing circuitry displays a running time and/or a remaining time of the plurality of analysis processes (see: paragraph [0120] where there is a run time which is being determined and displayed on the GUI).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 19, Kikuchi, Dala et al., Oyama, and Carey et al. in combination teaches the apparatus of claim 17, see discussion of claim 17. Carey et al. further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
--select a display-targeted analysis process from the plurality of analysis processes in accordance with a role and/or a location of a user who is using the display; (see: paragraph [0033] where all tasks for a role are displayed upon selection of a task)
--analysis processes as display-targeted analysis processes; (see: paragraph [0033] where there is a display targeted analysis process in the form of displayed tasks based on the role of the user) and
--display a running time and/or a remaining time of the analysis process among the plurality of analysis processes on the display that is being used by the user (see: paragraph [0120] where there is a run time which is being determined and displayed on the GUI).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 20, claim 20 is similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner to claim 1.
As per claim 21, Kikuchi, Dala et al., Oyama, and Carey et al. in combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Kikuchi further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to arrange the DICOM data of two or more of the plurality of execution results relating to an identical type of analysis application in a single display section assigned for the analysis application in the first display area in accordance with predetermined rules regarding a processing order (see: FIG. 7B where there are two or more execution results (data sets of different days) relating to an identical type of analysis application (such as findings, diagnosis, and recommendation) in a single display section assigned for the analysis application in the first display area according to predetermined rules regarding processing order (Kikuchi teaches of predetermined display rules of being chronological)).
No Art Rejections
Claims 16 and 18 have not been given art rejections.
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 Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached on 571-270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684