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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed on 17 November 2025, the following has occurred: claims 1, 4 and 7-8 have been amended; claim 3 has been canceled.
Now claims 1-2, and 4-8 are pending.
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 1-2, and 4-8 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 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite treatment support apparatus (i.e., a system), a treatment support method (i.e., a method) and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., a system), for performing the limitations of:
Claim 1, which is representative of claims 7 and 8
acquiring a target image [… of …] a treatment target patient who is to be treated; searching for a first similar case from among a plurality of reference cases, each of the plurality of reference cases including a diagnosed image [… of …] a diagnosed patient before treatment, a post-treatment image [… of …] the diagnosed patient after treatment, and a diagnosis log describing a treatment method performed on the diagnosed patient for whom the diagnosed image and post-treatment image are acquired and a treatment result obtained by the treatment method, the first similar case being searched based on differences […] of the target image and […] the diagnosed images and having a similar feature to the target image; searching for a second similar case from among the plurality of reference cases, wherein the post-treatment image included in the first similar case is used as a new image query to perform the search for the second similar case based on differences […] of the post-treatment image of the first similar case and […] the post-treatment image of the reference cases, the second similar case being at least a portion of the reference cases other than the first similar case and having a similar feature to the post-treatment image included in the first similar case; acquire environment information including a facility such as a hospital and a doctor that give treatment to the treatment target patient; patient information including a patient name of the treatment target patient and a diagnosis result; and the treatment method described in a search diagnosis log that is the diagnosis log included in each of the first similar case and the second similar case which are directed to the diagnosed patients, to derive an expected treatment result of the target image when the treatment target patient is treated in accordance with the treatment method corresponding to the first and second similar cases described in the search diagnosis log; in response to determining that the expected treatment result of the target image is derived, generate a presentation screen by using contents of a description of the search diagnosis log and the expected treatment result, wherein the first similar case and the second similar case are classified by a unit of the post-treatment image included in the first similar case, which is referred to for searching for the second similar case, and the contents of the description of the search diagnosis log and the expected treatment result is generated for each of the classified groups; and [… outputting …] contents of the description of the search diagnosis log, and the expected treatment result of the treatment target patient, wherein the presentation screen [… output …] correspond to the treatment target patient and to each of the diagnosed patients for whom the first and second similar cases are acquired, [… output …] correspond to the environment information, the patient information, the treatment method, the grouping result and the treatment result, wherein the treatment result for each of the diagnosed patients for whom the first and second similar cases.
, as drafted, is a system that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) via the recitation of generic computer components. That is, by a human user interacting with at least one processor and a display (claim 1), a display (claim 7), a computer and a display (claim 8), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people, the Examiner notes as stated in 2106.04(a)(2), “certain activity between a person and a computer… may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping”. For example, but for at least one processor and a display (claim 1), a display (claim 7), a computer and a display (claim 8), the claim encompasses a doctor imaging a patient and providing the image as a search query (i.e. collecting data), to organize the collected data to perform searches for additional data (i.e., organization of data) to provide a human user an output for the treatment of their patient (i.e., output data), the claims collect, organize and output a result for a human user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of at least one processor and a display (claim 1), a display (claim 7), a computer and a display (claim 8). The at least one processor and a display (claim 1), a display (claim 7), a computer and a display (claim 8) is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., general purpose computers with processors and memory, performing/ implementing generic computer functions; see applicant’s specification Figures 1-3, paragraphs [0018]-[0028]) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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.
The claims recite the additional elements of “imaging a treatment target patient… by imaging…”, comparison of pixel values and “presenting, on a display the presentation screen… wherein the presentation screen displays a table in which rows… and columns”. The “imaging a treatment target patient… by imaging…” steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a general means of capturing a medical image) and amounts to the capture of an image which amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The comparison of pixel value steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a general means of comparing images) and amounts to the comparison of images which amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The “presenting, on a display the presentation screen… wherein the presentation screen displays a table in which rows… and columns” steps are recited at a high level of generality (simply outputting data on a generic display) and amounts to simply output of data, which is a form of post/extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 at least one processor and a display (claim 1), a display (claim 7), a computer and a display (claim 8), to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “imaging a treatment target patient… by imaging…”, comparison of pixel value and “presenting, on a display the presentation screen… wherein the presentation screen displays a table in which rows… and columns” were considered post/extra-solution activity and/or generally linking to a particular technological environment. The “imaging a treatment target patient… by imaging…” has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to amount to be well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. As described in Hibbard (20190192880): paragraph [0063]; De Francisco (20200082930): paragraph [0075]; Han (20170100078): paragraph [0007]. The comparison of pixel value has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to amount to be well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. As described in Hisanaga (20100232661): paragraph [0022]; Min (20210209757): paragraphs [0159]-[0161]; Sakata (20220148180): paragraph [0057]. The “presenting, on a display the presentation screen… wherein the presentation screen displays a table in which rows… and columns” has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to amount to be well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. As described in, Peng (2021/0019342): see below but at least Fig. 10, 15, paragraphs [0008], [0011]-[0012], [0049]; Moriya (2009/0080734): see below but at least Figures 16-18; Yee (20150161175): Fig. 7, paragraphs [0065]-[0072]; Kanada (): Fig. 16, paragraph [0130]; displaying treatment results on a generic user interface in a table with rows and columns is well-understood, routine and conventional. Well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions cannot provide “significantly more.” As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 4-6 are similarly rejected because either further define the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible.
Claim 2 further describes doctor and patient information, however does not recite any additional elements sufficient for practical application and/or significantly more.
Claim 4 recites the additional element of “using a trained model… by machine learning… wherein the training of the trained model is repeatedly executed…” however these steps are recited at a high level of generality (using generic machine learning to apply a generic off-the-shelf trained model) and amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Also as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “using a trained model… by machine learning… wherein the training of the trained model is repeatedly executed…” was considered generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to amount to be well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. As described in Peng (2021/0019342): see below but at least paragraphs [0013]; Bogonoi (20160321427): see below but at least paragraphs [0036]; training and applying a machine learning model is well-understood, routine and conventional. Well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions cannot provide “significantly more.” As such the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 5 further describes repeating, however does not recite any additional elements sufficient for practical application and/or significantly more.
Claim 6 further describes looking at stenosis in a coronary artery, however does not recite any additional elements sufficient for practical application and/or significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 17 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed on 17 November 2025.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-8, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments but does not find them persuasive. The Examiner has attempted to address all of the arguments presented by the Applicant; however, any arguments inadvertently not addressed are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
Applicant argues:
The Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims are not directed to any of the groupings of subject matter considered to be abstract ideas as discussed in MPEP 2106… The claimed operations involve specific image analysis and data processing performed by a computer to achieve a concrete technical outcome of generating and presenting a support screen display with specific information for supporting treatment decision-making… The claims are directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate in the technical field of computer-aided medical treatment support for reasons described as follows. As described in paragraph [0004]… the existing technology fails to provide a comprehensive or technically meaningful analysis… the claimed invention recites a particular ordered combination of steps which provide a technical solution to a technical problem… Performs two levels of searching… derives an expected treatment result for the target patient… presents a presentation screen display… The claimed invention is thus directed to a practical application that transforms raw medical and image-derived data into a medical support screen, thereby improving the way computers operate in processing and presenting medical decision support information… claims as a whole are significantly more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is respectfully submitted, the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation are directed toward collection of an image and data (i.e., collecting), using the collected to data to search and organize a result for a human user (i.e., organizing), and providing to a human user an output of the organized data (i.e., outputting), the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation are directed toward collection, organization and output of a result for a human user to interact with via interaction with generic off-the-shelf computer components, which as stated in 2106.04(a)(2), “certain activity between a person and a computer… may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping”. The claim is directed toward the certain method of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas.
The claims do not provide a technical solution to a technical problem recited in Applicant’s specification and/or an improvement in the performance of the computer. In particular, Applicant only argues pagraph [0004], for recitations of technical problems, however looking to the paragraph, at best the paragraph is directed toward human activity problems of providing a health care provider information on their patient for the human provider to use in the care of the patient (i.e., a human activity problem), and are not technical problems rooted in computer hardware technology, the claims at best provide human activity solutions to a human activity problem, which may improve upon the abstract idea, however an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues the two levels of searching, the deriving of a result, and presentation of data, however searching and deriving a result are not additional elements they are organization of data for performance of the abstract idea, while the presentation of data, is described as mere output of data and does not improve the performance of the computer, at best the claims merely output data in a table for a human user to use and merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and at best this is merely application of the abstract idea on generic computer components which are not particular, they are generic off-the shelf hardware (see Applicant’s Specification: Figures 1-3, paragraphs [0018]-[0028]), and which as stated in 2106.05(f)(2) “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA). The display is not improved data is merely output on it, which is not sufficient for a practical application and/or significantly more. As such the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-8, the Examiner has considered the applicant’s arguments and finds them persuasive, in particular, the amendments to the independent claims, recite limitations that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would not have found it obvious to include within the combination of Peng, Moriya, Bogonoi, Yee and Kanada, respectively. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would not have found it obvious to include limitations related to using the post-treatment image found in the first similar case as a new query for search of a second case, deriving an expected treatment result and display of a table with rows and columns that provide the similar cases and an expected treatment result, as argued by the Applicant.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew E Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-8323. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5:00 PM.
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.
/A.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684