DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reference to the RCE filed on 2 SEPT 2026, incorporating the amendments as filed with the Response After Final Action on 3 AUG 2026.
Amendments to claims 1, 8, 9, 10, 18, the cancellation of claim 3, 12 are entered and considered.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-18 are present and have been examined.
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, 4-11, 13-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As explained below, the claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One: Is the Claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4-11, 13-18 the independent claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 10 recite(s) an apparatus, a system, method, and a non-transitory computer readable medium, each of which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4-11, 13-18 the independent claim(s) 1, 8, 10 is/are directed, in pertinent part as shown in exemplary claim 1) to:
A medical information
receive,
upon the setting of the first checking authority and the second checking authority, automatically transmit notifications to the EMR
after the setting of the first checking authority and the second checking authority, upon receiving a display instruction
determine by comparing a user ID of a user who input the display instruction with the first checking authority user ID and the second checking authority user ID registered in association with the report ID of the interpretation report in the report information table, which of the first checking authority and the second checking authority the user has; and
upon a determination that the user does not have the first checking authority and has the second checking authority, enable a check operation on the interpretation report by the user based on the second checking authority user ID registered in the report information table.
These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Setting first and second authority between users, and comparing user IDs to determine first and second authority is a management of interactions/relationships/behaviors of those users. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing relationships/interactions, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner also notes these claim elements arguably recite a mental process including concepts performed in the human mind such as evaluation judgement and/or opinion. Setting a first and second authority of a user to check a report, and comparing the authority of a first and second user/authority is arguably a judgement/opinion question on the part of the setting entity. If a claim limitation covers judgement/opinion then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) additional elements:
Claims 1 has been amended to recite a “hardware processor”, “medical information processing apparatus” connected to a “ PAC server, EMR server, and one or more client terminals”, comprising a “communication and a storage section”, as well as wherein the “client terminals display a GUI screen,” with claims 8, 9, 10 reciting similar elements, with claim 10 further including a “non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a program.”
The processor/apparatus with communication/storage sections, common to claims 1, 8, 9, 10, as well as the non-transitory computer readable recording medium in claim 10 are recited at a high level of generality and as such amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f), or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use/computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05h). Similarly, “PAC and EMR Servers,” and “one or more client terminals” with “GUI Screen” are also found to be merely using the computing elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and/or generally link the technology to the judicial exception. Examiner finds no improvement to the functioning of the computer or any other technology or technical field in the processor/computer readable recording medium, nor in the as claimed (see MPEP 2106.05a), nor any other application or use of the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond a general like between the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05e). Further, the use of a GUI to display information, and the general sending and receiving of information between the various servers/devices is generally found to be analogous to adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception(s) identified (see MPEP 2106.05g).
Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) do(es) 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.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO.
Claims 1 has been amended to recite a “hardware processor”, “medical information processing apparatus” connected to a “ PAC server, EMR server, and one or more client terminals”, comprising a “communication and a storage section”, as well as wherein the “client terminals display a GUI screen,” with claims 8, 9, 10 reciting similar elements, with claim 10 further including a “non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a program.”
When considered individually, the processor and non-transitory computer readable recording medium claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. Examiner finds similarly with regard to the “PAC and EMR Servers,” and “one or more client terminals” with “GUI Screen” It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification:
[0036] As illustrated in FIG. 1, the medical information processing system 100 includes an electronic medical record server 10, a medical information processing apparatus 20, and a client terminal 30. The respective apparatuses included in the medical information processing system 100 are connected to each other via a communication network N such as a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN) so as to transmit and receive data.
[0041] The medical information processing apparatus 20 is a computer apparatus that manages medical information. The medical information processing apparatus 20 is, for example, a picture archiving and communication system (PACS).
[0055] As illustrated in FIG. 2, the medical information processing apparatus 20 includes a controller 21, a communication section 22, a clock 23, and a storage section 24. Each unit of the medical information processing apparatus 20 is connected by a bus.
[0056] The controller 21 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), and the like. The controller 21 comprehensively controls processing operation of each section of the medical information processing apparatus 20. Specifically, the CPU reads various processing programs stored in the ROM, develops the programs in the RAM, and performs various processes in cooperation with the programs.
[0082] The client terminal 30 is a computer device such as a personal computer (PC) used by a doctor, a nurse, or the like A doctor, a nurse, or the like browses medical information such as a medical report on the client terminal 30.
[0084] As illustrated in FIG. 5, the client terminal 30 includes a controller 31, a display part 32, an operation part 33, a communication section 34, a storage section 35, and the like. Each unit of the client terminal 30 is connected by a bus.
[0085] The controller 31 includes a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, and the like, and integrally controls the processing operation of each unit of the client terminal 30. Specifically, the CPU reads various processing programs stored in the ROM, develops the programs in the RAM, and performs various processes in cooperation with the programs.
[0211] Although the example in which a ROM is used as a computer-readable medium storing a program for executing each process has been disclosed in the above description, the medium is not limited to this example. As the computer-readable medium, a nonvolatile memory such as a flash memory or a portable recording medium such as a CD-ROM can also be applied. Furthermore, a carrier wave may be applied as a medium for providing data of the program via a communication line.
These passages, as well as others, makes it clear that the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
As per dependent claims 2-7, 11-18:
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 11, 13-16 are not directed any additional abstract ideas and are also not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as the types of scenarios/authority granted in a first and second situation, notifications priorities, and a check operation on behalf of the system when a first or second user attempts to input information. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks as filed with the After Final Response on 3 AUG 2026 are considered below as Examiner notes no additional remarks were filed.
Examiner appreciates Applicant’s references to the specification in support of the amendments on page 14.
Applicant begins a discussion of the 101 rejection on page 15 of the remarks, with a description of the invention/amended limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s discussion regarding the abstract idea on page 16. Examiner does not dispute there are technical aspects to the claim itself, however, these elements were considered at subsequent steps of the analysis. As such the discussion of the machine etc. is unpersuasive.
Applicant recites the newly amended limitations on pages 16/17, however Examiner notes only minimal elements of these amendments are suitable for discussion in the additional elements portion of the analysis. That the claims are implemented in a computing environment does not automatically convey eligibility. Examiner also notes that synchronization of authority states is not itself a technical improvement per the analysis above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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 571-270-1813. 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.
/KATHERINE . KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights