DETAILED ACTION
This office action is based on the claim set submitted and filed on 03/24/2026.
Claims 1, 11-12, 15, 23, and 25-26 have been amended.
Claim 10 has been canceled.
Claim 27-28 are New.
Claims 1-9 and 11-28 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/24/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim(s) 27 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(1). However, generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed, and even original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function, See MPEP 2161.01(1) citing in part Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349 ("[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention's boundaries.").
Specifically, with regard to computer-implemented functional claims, the specification must provide a disclosure of the computer and the algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention, including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function. MPEP 2161.01(1).
Claim 27 recite “wherein the generating includes mining semantic pixel information of an image to obtain at least a portion of the semantic information”, for which the subject matter of the limitation 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As best understood, it appears that there is no support for the underlined recitation in the original disclosure of the present application for this limitation. As described in applicant’s specification [0051], the description discloses “The computer image analysis techniques mine semantic pixel information, semantic feature information and semantic fact and figure about image” which describes a general image analysis technique. There is not explicit disclosure as filed describing using pixel information to obtain at least a portion of the semantic information as claimed.
The examiner takes the position that with respect to these limitations or features of the claims, the specification fails to provide an adequate written description of the invention to an extent that would sufficiently show that applicant was in possession of an invention that could operate as claimed. Simply disclosing a vague description, without actually explaining how to perform the function(s) claimed, results in a written description problem under 112(a). The examiner has no idea how applicant actually contemplated doing these steps because nothing is disclosed other than the broad disclosure of the specification as mentioned above.
Therefore, applicant has failed to show the actual subject matter in their possession at the time of the invention in a way sufficient to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. Therefore, these limitations of the claims are considered to be new matter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-9 and 11-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-9, 11-14, 16-19, and 23-28 are drawn to a method, Claims 15 and 21-22 are drawn to a system, and Claim 20 is drawn to an art of manufacturer, and each of which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. a machine and a process). Claims 1-9 and 11-28 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the steps of the claim for the invention represents an abstract idea of a series of steps that recite a process for identifying and associating medical images with semantic information. Collecting patient information and obtaining semantic information of a patient information to include identifier associated with location of an image context or concept associated with the patient information is an abstract idea that could have been performed by a human interacting with a system but for the fact that the claims recite a general-purpose computer processor to implement the abstract idea for steps citing activity that is/are defined as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or interactions between people) including following instructions to access patient data.
Independent claims 1, 15, 20 recite the steps of:
“generating semantic information based on at least one instance of medical imaging data, each of the at least one instance of medical imaging data being of a patient, the semantic information including text describing objects depicted among the at least one instance of medical imaging data, and the semantic information being associated with a first identifier indicating at least one storage location of the at least one instance of medical imaging data on a network
obtaining patient information of the patient;
obtaining, from a first data repository of the network, the semantic information based on the patient information,
obtaining the at least one instance of the medical imaging data based on the semantic information”.
The limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations by a human, thus, an abstract idea, reciting Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and a Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claimed concept encompasses the performance of the limitations by a human interaction with a device to obtain a patient health data/information and semantic information or relationship between concepts or instances to associate with a medical image instance(s) to be able to use the semantic information to obtain medical imaging information while utilizing storage location identifier to access images data and obtaining the concepts/instances based on the semantic information. These limitations encompass activity of a single person or multiple people and a computer, interacting with computing system(s) and/or with other users to perform the steps of the claimed invention, e.g., managing and structuring medical data that includes semantic information and identifier associated with stored location of the data used to access the data and sharing data between users, which constitutes Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Accordingly, the claim limitations (in BOLD) recite an abstract idea. Any limitations not identified above as part of the process are deemed "additional elements," and will be discussed in further detail below.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas, linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements such as “repository, processor, non-transitory readable medium, network” that is/are recited at a high - level of generality to perform the steps of the invention, performing generic computer functions such that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 "merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer" is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, looking at the claim as a whole, individually and in combination, 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception because as mentioned above, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components, recited at a high level of generality, do not present improvements to another technology or technical field, nor do they affect an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, that amount to no more than mere instruction to perform the abstract idea such that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to apply the exception using generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."). The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-14 and 16-19, and 21-28 include all of the limitations of claim(s) 1, 15, and 20 and therefore likewise incorporate the above-described abstract idea. While the depending claims add additional limitations, such as
As for claims 2 and 25, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human interaction, “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, but for the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. The claims recite additional elements “repository” that implement the identified abstract idea, recited in the claim(s) at a high level as a tool to apply the exceptions, i.e., “establishing subscription..., receiving notification..., sending a query...”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These elements effectively amount to no more than the words "apply it" with a computer because it appears to intend to do so, which would still amount to 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 ("significantly more").
As for claims 3-5, 7-8, 11, 13-14, 16-17, and 26-27, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human interaction, “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and using human mind with the aid of pen and paper, “Mental Process”, but for the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible.
As for claims 6, 9, 12, 18-19, 21-24, and 28 the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human mind with the aid of pen and paper but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. The claims recite additional elements “device, repository, network, uniform resources locator, processor/ processing circuitry, imaging equipment, X-ray scanner, computed tomography scanner, magnetic resonance imaging scanner, positron emission tomography scanner, an ultrasound scanner” that implement the identified abstract idea. These hardware components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., general purpose computers/components implementing generic computer functions; applicant's specification makes no mention of any specific hardware) to perform the steps, e.g., “capturing raw image data”, “the lookup table including a link between the semantic information and the first identifier”, that amounts to no more than the words "apply it" with a computer because it appears to intend to do so see MPEP 2106.04(f), which would still amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.04(d) and Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. storing and retrieving, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(g), and OIP Techs., and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e., performing a medical scan using medical imaging equipment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements amount to more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component and have been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 03/24/2026 have been fully considered by the Examiner and addressed as the following:
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that:
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection on page 12-17.
On page 13-14 of the remarks, Applicant argues “Applicants submit that claim 1 is directed to patent eligible subject matter at least because any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. For example, Applicants submit that claim 1, as a whole, reflects a technical improvement for at least the reasons contained on pages 14-16 of the November 6, 2025 Amendment, pages 13-15 of the May 9, 2025 Amendment and pages 12-13 of the January 29, 2025 Amendment, and incorporated by reference example, the features of claim 1 reflect an improved search engine for medical image data, an improvement to a technical field for at least the reasons contained on pages 14-16 of the November 6, 2025 Amendment”, Examiner respectfully disagree. The claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation for the purpose of determining whether they encompass a judicial exception. As described in the prior rejection, Final OA mailed 02/19/2025, Non-Final OA mailed 08/06/2025, and the Final OA mailed 01/13/2026, the amended claim(s) (1 and 15), given their broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are reciting a process for associating semantic information with patient image data to facilitate obtaining medical imaging data using context and location identifier which are steps that can be performed by a human/user that encompasses activity or interaction of a single person or multiple people with a computer performing the abstract idea of organizing, associating, and storing, reciting a judicial exception that falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping with sub-grouping (i.e., managing personal behavior or interactions between people) including following instructions, and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.
Moreover, the claim(s) recite additional elements that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, e.g., “repository, processor, non-transitory readable medium, network”. The claim(s), as a whole, recites an abstract idea for associating semantic information and image data and nowhere the claims nor the specification recite a technical solution improving the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field rather the claimed invention is describing a solution addressing an administrative activity facilitating smooth patient handling in a patient management workflow at a hospital and quality care, see at least, (Applicant [0061], [0096]). The alleged improvement that Applicant’s tout (“improved search engine for medical image data”) do not concern an improvement in computer capabilities, any improvement to another technology or technical field, or an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, but instead relate to an alleged improvement in patient and data management workflow, for which a computer is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity, which describes an improvement to data workflow for solving a health facility administrative and clinical issue for associating image data and sematic information.
By relying on computing devices to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 "use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions" is not an inventive concept).
On page 14 of the remarks, Applicant argues “For example, the Examiner does not address the technical improvements argued in the November 6, 2025 Amendment. Instead, the Examiner appears to refer to an unargued improvement and asserts that this unargued improvement is not sufficiently technical. Specifically, the Examiner does not address the argued improvements to a search engine for medical image data reflected by the features of claim 1. Further, Applicants note that examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement. see MPEP § 2106.05(a)”, Examiner disagrees to this argument. The Examiner has addressed the argument for the alleged technical improvement on pages 12-13 of the January 29, 2025 Amendment as described in the Final OA mailed 02/19/2025 (p. 20), Examiner addressed similar argument on pages 13-15 of the May 9, 2025 Amendment as described in the Non-Final OA mailed 08/06/2025 (p. 26-28), and finally Examiner addressed similar argument on pages 14-16 of the November 6, 2025 as described in the Final OA mailed 01/13/2026 (p. 10-11).
On page 15 of the remarks, Applicant argues “Applicants submit that claim 14, for example, is directed to patent eligible subject matter at least because claim 14 is not directed to an abstract idea, and even if directed to an abstract idea, any such abstract idea is integrated into a practical application... the claimed "processing" are not performable by a human, and thus, do not recite the alleged abstract idea. Thus, at least these features represent additional elements relative to the alleged abstract idea”, Examiner disagrees. As discussed above, the claim(s) recite additional elements that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, e.g., “repository, processor, non-transitory readable medium, network” that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223. By relying on computing devices to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 "use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions" is not an inventive concept).
On page 16 of the remarks, Applicant argues “Applicants submit that claim 28, for example, is directed to patent eligible subject matter at least because claim 28 is not directed to an abstract idea, and even if directed to an abstract idea, any such abstract idea is integrated into a practical application”, Examiner disagrees. Examiner asserts that the steps with [emphasis added] 25. “... receiving the semantic information in response to the query based on an association between the patient information and the text [of the semantic information]. 28. The computer-implemented method of claim 25, wherein the obtaining of the at least one instance of the medical imaging data includes: obtaining the first identifier based on the semantic information using a lookup table, the lookup table including a link between the semantic information and the first identifier; ...” are, under BRI, recite step(s) that is/are part of the identified abstract idea. The claim addition element “the lookup table including a link between the semantic information and the first identifier”, that is a mere instruction to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Therefore, the Applicant argument is found to be unpersuasive and Examiner remains the 101 rejections of claims which have been updated to address Applicant's argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAAELDIN ELSHAER whose telephone number is (571)272-8284. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, MAMON OBEID can be reached at Mamon.Obeid@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/ALAAELDIN M. ELSHAER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights