CTFR 18/192,311 CTFR 94231 16DETAILED ACTION Notices to Applicant This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-22 as filed 01/29/2026, are currently pending and have been considered below. 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority The present application is a continuation of International Application PCT/JP2021/035310 filed on September 27, 2021, which claims priority to Japanese Application No. 2020-163919 filed on September 29, 2020. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 19-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the screen" in lines 25 and 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 6 introduces the element “a display screen,” such that it is unclear as to whether “the screen” of lines 25 and 31 are the same or different elements as that recited in line 6. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 19 recites the limitation " the screen " in line 25 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-9 and 19-22 are rejected as being indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-5, 7-14, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i. e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 21-22 are drawn to a treatment support system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Independent Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites (additional element bolded): A treatment support system comprising: an intravascular image diagnostic device configured to generate an ultrasound tomographic image of a blood vessel of a patient; a transparent photographing device configured to capture a transparent image of an inside of a body of the patient; a display screen; and a processor configured to: sequentially acquire medical information collected in part prior to a catheter treatment on a patient and in part during execution of the catheter treatment on the patient, the sequentially acquired medical information including the ultrasound tomographic image of the patient generated by the intravascular image diagnostic device and the transparent image of the inside of the body of the patient captured by the transparent photographing device; calculate a score related to a prognosis for each of a plurality of complications that may occur according to the catheter treatment on the basis of the sequentially acquired medical information; identify one or more complications at risk among the plurality of complications on the basis of the calculated score; search cases having a score within a predetermined range to the calculated score from a database configured to store information regarding a complication that has occurred in the past and a score related to the calculated prognosis for the complication in association with each other; read information on the cases from the database ; output information on the identified complication and information on the case retrieved from the database on the screen both before and during the catheter treatment on the patient as support information for formulating a treatment strategy for the catheter treatment on the patient, wherein the information on the cases retrieved from the database includes at least one of the attribute information of the patient of the case, measurement information of the patient in the case, and information on the performed procedure and treatment on the patient in the cases; and display, on the screen, the output information on the identified complication in a predetermined number of panels in descending order of risk of poor prognosis and the output information on the cases retrieved in a predetermined number of panels in descending order of similarity, which are arranged adjacent to the predetermined number of panels in descending order of risk of poor prognosis. The above limitations, as drafted, is a machine that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior and/or interactions between people through rules or instructions as well as performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the above bolded elements, for example “ an intravascular image diagnostic device,” “ a transparent photographing device,” “ a processor ,” and “ a database ,” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from managing personal behavior or interactions between people and/or practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the above bolded language, sequentially acquire medical information collected in part prior to and in part during execution of a catheter treatment on a patient, analyze the sequentially acquired medical information to calculate a score related to a prognosis for each of a plurality of complications that may occur, analyze the score to identify one or more complications at risk among the plurality of complications, search cases having a score within a predetermined range to the calculated score regarding a complication that has occurred in the past , read information on the cases, and output information of the complication identified and information on the retrieved case both before and during the catheter treatment on the patient as support information for formulating a treatment strategy for the catheter treatment on the patient in the context of this claim encompasses rules or instructions for managing personal behavior or interactions between people and the user manually collecting and analyzing medical data through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and a claim limitation that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” 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 only recites the above bolded additional elements of using, for example “ an intravascular image diagnostic device,” “ a display screen,” “ a transparent photographing device,” “ a processor ,” and “ a database ,” to perform the claim limitations. The elements in each of these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a CPU, a ROM, and a RAM, a volatile or nonvolatile memory, and the like, a database and display screen, as they relate to general purpose computer components, an IVUS (intravascular ultrasound device), and an angiography device (Application Specification [0027], [0030], [0032], [0036], [0039], [0068])). As such, the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The additional element of “ display, on the screen, the output information on the identified complication in a predetermined number of panels in descending order of risk of poor prognosis and the output information on the cases retrieved in a predetermined number of panels in descending order of similarity, which are arranged adjacent to the predetermined number of panels in descending order of risk of poor prognosis” amounts to using a display screen in its ordinary capacity for displaying outputted data, wherein the arrangement of the data is data manipulation through sorting the output information. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Further, the additional elements reciting “ an intravascular image diagnostic device configured to generate an ultrasound tomographic image of a patient,” and “ a transparent photographing device configured to capture a transparent image of an inside of a body of the patient” are mer e data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (mere data gathering) (i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); vi. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. See also PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis)). 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 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 using, for example “ an intravascular image diagnostic device,” “ a display screen,” “ a transparent photographing device,” “ a processor ,” and “ a database ,” to perform the collecting and analyzing limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. (i.e., a CPU, a ROM, and a RAM, a volatile or nonvolatile memory, and the like, a database and display screen, as they relate to general purpose computer components, an IVUS (intravascular ultrasound device), and an angiography device (Application Specification [0027], [0030], [0032], [0036], [0039], [0068])). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component or other machinery used in its ordinary capacity cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Further, the additional elements reciting “ an intravascular image diagnostic device configured to generate an ultrasound tomographic image of a patient” (Application Specification [0030] e.g. an IVUS (intravascular ultrasound device)) and “ a transparent photographing device configured to capture a transparent image of an inside of a body of the patient” (Application Specification [0032] e.g. an angiography device) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP2106.05(d); (U.S. 2014/0270429 A1 “Innovations in diagnosing and verifying the level of success of treatment of disease have migrated from external imaging processes to internal diagnostic processes. In particular, diagnostic equipment and processes have been developed for diagnosing vasculature blockages and other vasculature disease by means of … For example, known medical sensing techniques include angiography, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), forward looking IVUS (FL-IVUS), … and image-guided therapy. …. To increase the chance of successful treatment, health care facilities may have a multitude of imaging, treatment, diagnostic, and sensing modalities on hand during a procedure.”). The claim is not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2 -5, 7-9, and 21-22 include limitations of the independent claim and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein. The dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. These additional claims recite what the medical data is and how it is analyzed. These information characteristics do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract ideas. Dependent claim 9 recites the additional element of “a machine learning model,” to calculate a second score, however, this additional element is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a machine learning model such as a convolution neural network (Application Specification at [0045])), such that it amounts to limitations to perform the model using a computer as a tool to analyze a medical image to calculate a score. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore the dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 10 -14, and 16-18 are drawn to a treatment method, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. method). Independent Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 10 recites (additional element bolded): 10. A treatment method comprising: sequentially acquiring medical information collected in part prior to a catheter treatment on a patient and in part during execution of the catheter treatment on the patient, the sequentially acquired medical information including an ultrasound tomographic image of a blood vessel of the patient generated by an intravascular image diagnostic device and a transparent image of an inside of a body of the patient captured by a transparent photographing device; calculating a score related to a prognosis for each of a plurality of complications that may occur according to the catheter treatment on the basis of the sequentially acquired medical information; identifying one or more complications at risk among the plurality of complications on the basis of the calculated score; searching cases having a score within a predetermined range to the score calculated from a database configured to store information regarding a complication that has occurred in the past and a score related to the calculated prognosis for the complication in association with each other; reading information of the cases from the database; outputting information on the identified complication and information on the cases retrieved from the database on a screen both before and during the catheter treatment on the patient as support information for formulating a treatment strategy for the catheter treatment on the patient, and wherein the output information on the identified complication is displayed in a predetermined number of panels in descending order of risk of poor prognosis and the output information on the cases retrieved is displayed in a predetermined number of panels in descending order of similarity, which are arranged adjacent to the predetermined number of panels in descending order of risk of poor prognosis ; and administering the treatment strategy for the catheter treatment to the patient to reduce a risk of the identified complication, and wherein the identified complication includes one or more of a dissection of the blood vessel, a side branch occlusion of the blood vessel, no reflow in the blood vessel, and slow flow in the blood vessel, and the catheter treatment is a balloon dilation, stent placement, directional coronary artery resection, and cutting of a calcified lesion using a rotablator. The above limitations, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior and/or interactions between people through rules or instructions as well as performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the above bolded elements, for example “ an intravascular image diagnostic device,” “ a transparent photographing device,” “ a processor ,” “ a database ,” and “ a screen ” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from managing personal behavior or interactions between people and/or practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the above bolded language, sequentially acquire medical information collected in part prior to and in part during execution of a catheter treatment on a patient, analyze the sequentially acquired medical information to calculate a score related to a prognosis for each of a plurality of complications that may occur, analyze the score to identify one or more complications at risk among the plurality of complications, search cases having a score within a predetermined range to the calculated score regarding a complication that has occurred in the past , read information on the cases, and output information of the complication identified and information on the retrieved case both before and during the catheter treatment on the patient as support information for formulating a treatment strategy for the catheter treatment on the patient in the context of this claim encompasses rules or instructions for managing personal behavior or interactions between people and the user manually collecting and analyzing medical data through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and a claim limitation that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” 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 only recites additional elements of using “ an intravascular image diagnostic device,” “ a transparent photographing device,” “ a processor ,” “ a database ,” and “ a screen ” to perform the collecting and analyzing limitations. The elements in each of these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a CPU, a ROM, and a RAM, a volatile or nonvolatile memory, and the like, a database and display screen, as they relate to general purpose computer components, an IVUS (intravascular ultrasound device), and an angiography device (Application Specification [0027], [0030], [0032], [0036], [0039], [0068])). As such, the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The additional element of “ outputting information .. on a screen” amounts to using a display screen in its ordinary capacity for displaying outputted data, wherein the arrangement of the data is data manipulation through sorting the output information. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Further, the additional elements reciting “ an intravascular image diagnostic device configured to generate an ultrasound tomographic image of a patient” and “ a transparent photographing device configured to capture a transparent image of an inside of a body of the patient” are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (mere data gathering) (i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); vi. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. See also PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis)). Lastly, the additional element of “ administering the treatment strategy for the catheter treatment to the patient to reduce a risk of the identified complication, and wherein the identified complication includes one or more of a dissection of the blood vessel, a side branch occlusion of the blood vessel, no reflow in the blood vessel, and slow flow in the blood vessel, and the catheter treatment is a balloon dilation, stent placement, directional coronary artery resection, and cutting of a calcified lesion using a rotablator” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). 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 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 using “ an intravascular image diagnostic device,” “ a transparent photographing device,” “ a processor ,” “ a database ,” and “ a screen ” to perform the collecting and analyzing limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. (i.e., a CPU, a ROM, and a RAM, a volatile or nonvolatile memory, and the like, a database and display screen, as they relate to general purpose computer components, an IVUS (intravascular ultrasound device), and an angiography device (Application Specification [0027], [0030], [0032], [0036], [0039], [0068])). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component or other machinery used in its ordinary capacity cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Further, the additional elements reciting “ an intravascular image diagnostic device configured to generate an ultrasound tomographic image of a patient” (Application Specification [0030] e.g. an IVUS (intravascular ultrasound device)) and “ a transparent photographing device configured to capture a transparent image of an inside of a body of the patient” (Application Specification [0032] e.g. an angiography device) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP2106.05(d); (U.S. 2014/0270429 A1 “Innovations in diagnosing and verifying the level of success of treatment of disease have migrated from external imaging processes to internal diagnostic processes. In particular, diagnostic equipment and processes have been developed for diagnosing vasculature blockages and other vasculature disease by means of … For example, known medical sensing techniques include angiography, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), forward looking IVUS (FL-IVUS), … and image-guided therapy. …. To increase the chance of successful treatment, health care facilities may have a multitude of imaging, treatment, diagnostic, and sensing modalities on hand during a procedure.”). Lastly, the additional element of “ administering the treatment strategy for the catheter treatment to the patient to reduce a risk of the identified complication, and wherein the identified complication includes one or more of a dissection of the blood vessel, a side branch occlusion of the blood vessel, no reflow in the blood vessel, and slow flow in the blood vessel, and the catheter treatment is a balloon dilation, stent placement, directional coronary artery resection, and cutting of a calcified lesion using a rotablator” amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity . See MPEP 2106.05(d)(g)(iv. Immunizing a patient against a disease, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1063, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1497 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Application Specification at [0042]m “Examples of the procedure user”). The claim is not patent eligible. Dependent claims 11-14 and 16-18 include limitations of the independent claim and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein. The dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. These additional claims recite what the medical data is and how it is analyzed. These information characteristics do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract ideas. Dependent claim 18 recites the additional element of “a machine learning model,” to calculate a second score, however, this additional element is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a machine learning model such as a convolution neural network (Application Specification at [0045])), such that it amounts to limitations to perform the model using a computer as a tool to analyze a medical image to calculate a score. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore the dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 19-20 are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium for processing medical information, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture). Independent Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 19 recites (additional element bolded): A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program, which when executed by a computer, performs processing comprising: sequentially acquiring medical information collected in part prior to a catheter treatment on a patient and in part during execution of the catheter treatment is performed on the patient, the sequentially acquired medical information including an ultrasound tomographic image of a blood vessel of the patient generated by an intravascular image diagnostic device and a transparent image of an inside of a body of the patient captured by a transparent photographing device; calculating a score related to a prognosis for each of a plurality of complications that may occur according to the catheter treatment on the basis of the sequentially acquired medical information; identifying one or more complications at risk among the plurality of complications on the basis of the calculated score; searching cases having a score within a predetermined range to the score calculated from a database configured to store information regarding a complication that has occurred in the past and a score related to the calculated prognosis for the complication in association with each other; outputting information on the identified complication and information on the case retrieved from the database both before and during the catheter treatment on the patient as support information for formulating a treatment strategy for the catheter treatment on the patient, wherein the information on the cases retrieved from the database includes at least one of the attribute information of a patient of the case, measurement information of the patient in the case, and information on the performed procedure and treatment on the patient in the cases; and displaying, on the screen, the output information on the identified complication in a predetermined number of panels in descending order of risk of poor prognosis and the output information on the cases retrieved in a predetermined number of panels in descending order of similarity, which are arranged adjacent to the predetermined number of panels in descending order of risk of poor prognosis. The above limitations, as drafted, is a manufacture that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior and/or interactions between people through rules or instructions as well as performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the above bolded elements, for example “ a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program, which when executed by a computer, performs processing ,” “ an intravascular image diagnostic device,” “ a transparent photographing device,” “ a database ,” and “ the screen ” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from managing personal behavior or interactions between people and/or practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the above bolded language, sequentially acquire medical information collected in part prior to and in part during execution of a catheter treatment on a patient, analyze the sequentially acquired medical information to calculate a score related to a prognosis for each of a plurality of complications that may occur, analyze the score to identify one or more complications at risk among the plurality of complications, search cases having a score within a predetermined range to the calculated score regarding a complication that has occurred in the past , read information on the cases, and output information of the complication identified and information on the retrieved case both before and during the catheter treatment on the patient as support information for formulating a treatment strategy for the catheter treatment on the patient in the context of this claim encompasses rules or instructions for managing personal behavior or interactions between people and the user manually collecting and analyzing medical data through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and a claim limitation that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” 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 only recites additional elements of using “ a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program, which when executed by a computer, performs processing ,” “ an intravascular image diagnostic device,” “ a transparent photographing device,” “ a database ,” and “ the screen ” to perform the collecting and analyzing limitations. The elements in each of these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a CPU, a ROM, and a RAM, a volatile or nonvolatile memory, and the like, a database and display screen, as they relate to general purpose computer components, an IVUS (intravascular ultrasound device), and an angiography device (Application Specification [0027], [0030], [0032], [0036], [0039], [0068])). As such, the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The additional element of “ displaying, on the screen, the output information on the identified complication in a predetermined number of panels in descending order of risk of poor prognosis and the output information on the cases retrieved in a predetermined number of panels in descending order of similarity, which are arranged adjacent to the predetermined number of panels in descending order of risk of poor prognosis” amounts to using a display screen in its ordinary capacity for displaying outputted data, wherein the arrangement of the data is data manipulation through sorting the output information. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Further, the additional elements reciting “ an intravascular image diagnostic device configured to generate an ultrasound tomographic image of a patient” and “ a transparent photographing device configured to capture a transparent image of an inside of a body of the patient” are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (mere data gathering) ( i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); vi. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. See also PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis)). 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 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 using “ a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program, which when executed by a computer, performs processing ,” “ an intravascular image diagnostic device,” “ a transparent photographing device,” “ a database ,” and “ the screen ” to perform the collecting and analyzing limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. (i.e., a CPU, a ROM, and a RAM, a volatile or nonvolatile memory, and the like, a database and display screen, as they relate to general purpose computer components, an IVUS (intravascular ultrasound device), and an angiography device (Application Specification [0027], [0030], [0032], [0036], [0039], [0068])). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component or other machinery used in its ordinary capacity cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Further, the additional elements reciting “ an intravascular image diagnostic device configured to generate an ultrasound tomographic image of a patient” (Application Specification [0030] e.g. an IVUS (intravascular ultrasound device)) and “ a transparent photographing device configured to capture a transparent image of an inside of a body of the patient” (Application Specification [0032] e.g. an angiography device) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP2106.05(d); (U.S. 2014/0270429 A1 “Innovations in diagnosing and verifying the level of success of treatment of disease have migrated from external imaging processes to internal diagnostic processes. In particular, diagnostic equipment and processes have been developed for diagnosing vasculature blockages and other vasculature disease by means of … For example, known medical sensing techniques include angiography, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), forward looking IVUS (FL-IVUS), … and image-guided therapy. …. To increase the chance of successful treatment, health care facilities may have a multitude of imaging, treatment, diagnostic, and sensing modalities on hand during a procedure.”). The claim is not patent eligible. Dependent claim 20 includes limitations of the independent claim and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein. The dependent claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. These additional claims recite what the medical data is and how it is analyzed. These information characteristics do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract ideas. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore the dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Examiner Statement - 35 USC § 102/103 The following is an Examiner Statement regarding claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-22 in view of 35 USC § 102/103: The closest prior art of record – U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0098479 A1 (hereinafter “Kennedy et al.”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2017/0337345 A1 (hereinafter “Pauws et al.”) and U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0038646 A1 (hereinafter “Bright et al.”), U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2023/0023521 A1 (hereinafter “Bydlon et al.”). U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2020/0176093 A1 (hereinafter “Kuchibotla et al.”), and U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2023/0023521 A1 (hereinafter “Bydlon et al.”) – fails to anticipate or otherwise render obvious each limitation of independent claims 1, 10, and 19, in their particular ordered combination of elements as currently claimed. That is, when reading the claim as a whole in the particular ordered combination of limitations, the claimed intravascular image diagnostic device, transparent photographing device the sequentially acquiring medical information collected in part prior to a catheter treatment on a patient and in part during execution of the catheter treatment on the patient from the devices to calculate a score related to a prognosis for each of a plurality of complications that may occur according to the catheter treatment on the basis of the sequentially acquired medical information to identify one or more complications at risk among the plurality of complications on the basis of the calculated score and searching cases and outputting and displaying the arrangement of information as currently recited is not anticipated or otherwise rendered obvious such that claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-22 are free of the prior art. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 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 01/29/2026 . In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that: Regarding the 101 rejection of claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-22 , Applicant argues the amendments to independent claims 1, 10, and 19 include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and add specific limitations other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional; and Regarding the 103 rejection of claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-22 , Applicant argues that the prior cited references fail to teach each of the limitations of the currently amended independent claims 1, 10, and 19. In response to Applicant’s argument (a) regarding the 101 rejection of claims 1-20, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the amendments to the independent claims recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea of the claims into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of the claims, for example, First, under Step 2A Prong 2, “ an intravascular image diagnostic device,” “ a display screen,” “ a transparent photographing device,” “ a processor ,” and “ a database ,” are recited to perform the claim limitations. The elements in each of these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a CPU, a ROM, and a RAM, a volatile or nonvolatile memory, and the like, a database and display screen, as they relate to general purpose computer components, an IVUS (intravascular ultrasound device), and an angiography device (Application Specification [0027], [0030], [0032], [0036], [0039], [0068])). As such, the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The additional element of “ display, on the screen, the output information on the identified complication in a predetermined number of panels in descending order of risk of poor prognosis and the output information on the cases retrieved in a predetermined number of panels in descending order of similarity, which are arranged adjacent to the predetermined number of panels in descending order of risk of poor prognosis” amounts to using a display screen in its ordinary capacity for displaying outputted data, wherein the arrangement of the data is data manipulation through sorting the output information. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Further, the additional elements reciting “ an intravascular image diagnostic device configured to generate an ultrasound tomographic image of a patient,” and “ a transparent photographing device configured to capture a transparent image of an inside of a body of the patient” are mer e data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (mere data gathering) (i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); vi. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. See also PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis)), and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Step 2B. As per claim 10, the additional element of “ administering the treatment strategy for the catheter treatment to the patient to reduce a risk of the identified complication, and wherein the identified complication includes one or more of a dissection of the blood vessel, a side branch occlusion of the blood vessel, no reflow in the blood vessel, and slow flow in the blood vessel, and the catheter treatment is a balloon dilation, stent placement, directional coronary artery resection, and cutting of a calcified lesion using a rotablator” amounts to insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g), and amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Step 2B. That is, the additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application in large part because the additional elements are used as general purpose computer components or other machinery used in their ordinary capacity as tool for performing the abstract idea, and further, fail to recite a technical improvement to a technical problem in the functioning of the computer or technical field itself. As Applicant argues, repeatedly, the claims are directed to an alleged improvement to the abstract idea, not to an improvement to the functioning of the computer, the functioning of a display screen, or any of the devices used for data collection of treatment administration. See Remarks at pg. 17 “identify one or more complications as risk a plurality of complications cause by medical practice such as surgery and examination, which may become a problem during a catheter treatment,” and pg. 19 “the medical worker can appropriately formulate a treatment strategy by referring to similar cases that have cause complications,”). Examiner respectfully submits that the claims are directed to an alleged improvement to the abstract idea itself to provide support information for formulating appropriate treatment strategies, not an improvement to technology itself to overcome a technical problem. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, Examiner respectfully maintains the 101 rejection of claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-22 . In response to Applicant’s argument (b) regarding the 103 rejection of claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-22 , Examiner is persuaded and withdrawn the prior 103 rejection. As discussed in the above Office Action, Examiner is persuaded that the cited prior art of record fails to anticipate or otherwise render obvious each limitation of the currently amended independent claims in the particular ordered combination as claimed. Therefore, Examiner respectfully submits claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-22, as currently recited, are free of prior art . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2008/0033759 A1 teaches an interface for selecting complications for a patient surgery ([0058]); U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2009/00319299 A1 teaches a display for selectable adverse event information associated with a patient ([0067]); and U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2010/0023342 A1 teaches a clinical risk score for comparison of patients with complications relating to a specific disease ([0055]). 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 ANTHONY BALAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-8181. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:00 M-F. 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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3682 /FONYA M LONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 2 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 3 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 4 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 5 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 6 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 7 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 8 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 9 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 10 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 11 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 12 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 13 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 14 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 15 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 16 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 17 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 18 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 19 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 20 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 21 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 22 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 23 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/192,311 Page 24 Art Unit: 3682
Prosecution Insights