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 .
Status of Claims
In the response filed October 9, 2025, Applicant amended claims 1-7, 16, and 17. Claim 8 was canceled. Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are pending in the current application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 9, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant asserts that the human mind cannot read reference images from a memory, display images, generated and attach an edited image, or transmit order information. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). In this case, but for the generic computing components of processor and memory, the identified limitations encompass a radiologist identifying, editing, attaching, and transmitting a reference image (i.e., past image of the patient) based on receiving patient information Last, Applicant asserts that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application because “the order information for image exam includes an edited image based on instructions that can instruct a radiologist of the proper angle on the imaging exam and inappropriate instructions could lead to unnecessary radiation exposure. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As a whole, the additional element of “transmit order information to which the edited image has been attached” amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. The additional element recites activities incidental to the primary process, e.g., sending or displaying image information (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-7 and 9-17 do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite a machine (i.e., non-transitory storage medium and system) and process (i.e., a method).
Although claims 1-7 and 9-17 fall under at least one of the four statutory categories, it should be determined whether the claim wholly embraces a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106 I and II).
Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Part I: Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the Abstract Idea
Under step 2A, Prong One of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). The determination consists of a) identifying the specific limitations in the claim that recite an abstract idea; and b) determining whether the identified limitations fall within at least one of the three subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity).
The identified limitations of independent claim 1 (representative of independent claims 16 and 17) recite:
A memory storing a plurality of images;
processing circuitry configured to read images stored in the memory; and
a user interface configured to perform input and output of various types of information, wherein
the processing circuitry is further configured to:
acquire patient information on a target patient;
acquire information on an examination target;
read data from the memory and identify a plurality of reference image candidates based on the acquired information on the examination target and the acquired patient information;
display the plurality of reference image candidates on a user interface and receive selection of a reference image. of the displayed reference image candidates. by a user operation via the user interface;
generate an edited image by editing the reference image itself, while displaying the reference image on the user interface. based on instructions regarding an image examination of the examination target entered via the user interface. the editing including adding at least one of text and graphical symbols to the reference image as instructions related to the image examination;
generate order information ordering the image examination of the examination target:
attach the edited image to the generated order information; and
transmit the order information to which the edited image has been attached to cause the image examination to be performed on the target patient according to the edited image
The identified limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). For example, but for the generic computing components of processor and memory, the identified limitations encompass a radiologist identifying, editing, attaching, and transmitting a reference image (i.e., past image of the patient) based on receiving patient information. The claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes groupings of abstract ideas. Thus, the claimed invention recites a judicial exception.
Part I: Step 2A, prong two: additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Under step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claims are evaluated to determine if there are additional elements or a combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. As a whole, the additional element of “transmit order information to which the edited image has been attached” amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity using a generic processor and memory. The additional element recites activities incidental to the primary process, e.g., sending or displaying image information (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. For example, the dependent claims are directed to Mental processes and insignificant extra-solution activity because they recite events that can be performed in the mind (e.g., acquiring patient information) and incidental activities (e.g., transmitting information):
claim 2, the medical information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
read the data from the memory and identify the reference image candidates based on the information on the examination target and the patient information.
claim 3, the medical information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to read, from the memory, previously captured images of the examination target, and identify the reference image candidates from among previously captured images of the examination target.
claim 4, the medical information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to read, from the memory, past self-captured images of the examination target in the target patient, and identity the reference image candidates from among the read past self- captured images of the examination target in the target patient.
claim 5, the medical information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to read the data from the memory and identify the reference image candidates according to characteristics of the target patient included in the patient information.
claim 6, the medical information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to read, from the memory, model images expressing a human body structure according to characteristics of the target patient and identify the reference image candidates from among the read model images.
claim 7, the medical information processing system according to claim 5, wherein the characteristics of the target patient, which are used by the processing circuitry to identify the reference image candidates, include at least one of age, sex, physique, or diseases.
claim 9, the medical information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate the edited image by changing an imaging direction of the reference image.
claim 10, The medical information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate the edited image by changing an imaging range of the reference image.
claim 11, the medical information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate the edited image by applying an image filter to the reference image.
claim 12, the medical information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate the edited image obtained by removing an area of a part of an imaging range of the reference image.
claim 13, the medical information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
set history information indicating a history of operations performed on the reference image; and
transmit the order information to which the edited image and the history information have been attached.
claim 14, the medical information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
set explanatory information for the edited image; and
transmit the order information to which the edited image, for which the explanatory information has been set, has been attached.
claim 15, the medical information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine a target portion based on text information in examination purpose information;
detect the determined target portion in the reference image; and generate the edited image based on the detected target portion.
Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part II. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
Under Part II, the steps of the claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not improve another technology or technical field, do not improve the functioning of the computer itself, and are not enough to qualify as "significantly more". For example, the steps require no more than a conventional computer to perform generic computer functions. Specifically, transmitting information is insignificant extra-solution activity using generic computing components of a processor and memory that is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) states that “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). Therefore, based on the two-part Mayo analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. Claims 1-7 and 9-17, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional claims do no recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINYERE MPAMUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8853. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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.
/CHINYERE MPAMUGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685