DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they fail to label the element boxes in Figure 3. Without some indication as to the content of the boxes (or preferably symbols of the actual elements) it is not clear as to what the elements are and they are not explanatory to a reader as a quick method of determining the general background of the invention. See MPEP 608.02 and 37 CFR 1.84 (o) -- Legends --
Suitable descriptive legends may be used, or may be required by the Examiner, where necessary for understanding of the drawing, subject to approval by the Office. They should contain as few words as possible.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a system and method without significantly more. The claims recite a system and method for profile creation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements, wherein the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed elements when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
Claims 1-15 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.
Each of Claims 1-15 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Each of Claims 1-15 recites at least one step or instruction for creating a profile and provide recommendations, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. The claimed limitations involve managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-15 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites:
A system for patient profile creation, comprising: a scan simulation module comprising one or more sensory stimulation devices configured to apply at least one sensory stimulus over a patient to simulate a plurality of scan environments that may be experienced by a patient during a scan procedure, wherein the plurality of scan environments are different from each other in one or more of a scan protocol and a scanner characteristic; a patient monitoring module comprising one or more sensors configured to acquire data of the patient in the plurality of simulated scan environments; a patient profile generation module configured to determine a state of anxiety of the patient based on the acquired data and to create a patient profile comprising the determined state of anxiety of the patient in the plurality of simulated scan environments; and a recommendation module configured to generate, based on the created patient profile, a personalized recommendation for an actual scan procedure for the patient to reduce the anxiety of the patient during an actual patient scan process, wherein the personalized recommendation for an actual scan procedure comprises a recommended scan protocol and a recommended scanner characteristic.
Specifically, Claim 13 recites:
A method for patient profile creation, comprising: applying at least one sensory stimulus over a patient to simulate a plurality of scan environments, wherein a scan is a medical imaging scan, that may be experienced by a patient during a scan procedure, wherein the plurality of scan environments are different from each other in one or more of a scan protocol and a scanner characteristic; acquiring data of the patient in the plurality of simulated scan environments; and determining a state of anxiety of the patient based on the acquired data and creating a patient profile comprising the determined state of anxiety of the patient in the plurality of simulated scan environments; and generating, based on the created patient profile, a personalized recommendation for an actual scan procedure for the patient reduce the anxiety of the patient during an actual patient scan process, wherein the personalized recommendation for an actual scan procedure comprises a recommended scan protocol and a recommended scanner characteristic.
The limitations highlighted above, can be considered as observation, judgment or evaluation though a human using a human mind, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2-12 and 14-15 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 13 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-12 and 14-15) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 13), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: module as recited in independent Claims 1 and 13 and its dependent claims; are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1 and 13 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 13 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., module/processor as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 13 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 13 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
None of Claims 1-15 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, page 7, lines 20-25, the computer device is generically described without structure or detailed drawings, e.g., schematic drawing or described as an iphone or ipad or mobile device or personal computer or laptop, and therefore, such computer components are well understood, routine and conventional.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term module/processor is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the module/processor. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-15 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the system and method of Claims 1-15 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general-purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1-15 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 13 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-15 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-15 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 1-15 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pavlidis (US 2005/0259849 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Pavlidis discloses a system for patient profile creation, comprising: a scan simulation module wherein a medical imaging scan, comprising one or more sensory stimulation devices configured to apply at least one sensory stimulus over a patient to simulate a plurality of scan environments that may be experienced by a patient during a scan procedure, wherein the plurality of scan environments are different from each other in one or more of a scan protocol and a scanner characteristic (see paragraphs 0025-0026, and 0030); a patient monitoring module comprising one or more sensors configured to acquire data of the patient in the plurality of simulated scan environments (see paragraph 0024 discussing infrared detectors in thermal infrared camera #12); a patient profile generation module configured to determine a state of anxiety of the patient based on the acquired data and to create a patient profile comprising the determined state of anxiety of the patient in the plurality of simulated scan environments (see paragraph 0026-0027; see also different regions in Figure 3 that are mapped to create an the profile wherein the conglomerate of regions are considered as the formation of the profile); and a recommendation module configured to generate, based on the created patient profile, a personalized recommendation for an actual scan procedure for the patient to reduce the anxiety of the patient during an actual patient scan process, wherein the personalized recommendation for an actual scan procedure comprises a recommended scan protocol and a recommended scanner characteristic (see paragraph 0053).
With respect to claim 2, Pavlidis discloses determine one or more of the following parameters based on the acquired data: a reason of anxiety; or a time instant at which the patient has a high level of anxiety during the scan procedure; wherein the patient profile further comprises the one or more determined parameters (see paragraphs 0020 and 0026 providing reasons, including smuggling goods, terrorism or illegal activities).
With respect to claim 3, Pavlidis discloses the patient monitoring module comprises a sensor configured to monitor a behavior of the patient during the simulated scan procedure (see paragraph 0024 discussing infrared detectors in thermal infrared camera #12); and wherein the patient profile generation module is configured to determine, based on the monitored behavior of the patient, whether the patient acts in a compliant way with the simulated scan environment such that the scan procedure is not disrupted by the behavior of the patient (see paragraph 0026-0027; see also different regions in Figure 3 that are mapped to create an the profile wherein the conglomerate of regions are considered as the formation of the profile).
With respect to claim 4, Pavlidis discloses the scanner characteristic comprises at least one of: a scanner type; a level of autonomy of the scanner; and or a machine specification of a scanner (see paragraph 0024 discussing infrared detectors in thermal infrared camera #12 considered as scanner type).
With respect to claim 5, Pavlidis discloses the scan simulation module comprises one or more of the following sensory stimulation devices: a visual stimulation device; a tactile stimulation device; or an auditory stimulation device (see paragraphs 0020 and 0026 providing reasons, including smuggling goods, terrorism or illegal activities considered as tactile).
With respect to claim 7, Pavlidis discloses the patient monitoring module comprises one or more of the following sensors: a camera to acquire image data of the patient; or a physiology sensor configured to acquire physiological data of the patient (see paragraph 0024 discussing infrared detectors in thermal infrared camera #12).
With respect to claim 10, Pavlidis discloses the recommendation module is configured to generate the personalized recommendation for an actual scan procedure utilizing a trained machine learning model (see paragraph 0052).
With respect to claims 13-15, Pavlidis discloses a method for patient profile creation, comprising: applying at least one sensory stimulus over a patient to simulate a plurality of scan environments, wherein a scan is a medical imaging scan, that may be experienced by a patient during a scan procedure, wherein the plurality of scan environments are different from each other in one or more of a scan protocol and a scanner characteristic (see paragraphs 0025-0026, and 0030); acquiring data of the patient in the plurality of simulated scan environments; and determining a state of anxiety of the patient based on the acquired data and creating a patient profile comprising the determined state of anxiety of the patient in the plurality of simulated scan environments; and generating, based on the created patient profile (see paragraph 0026-0027; see also different regions in Figure 3 that are mapped to create an the profile wherein the conglomerate of regions are considered as the formation of the profile), a personalized recommendation for an actual scan procedure for the patient reduce the anxiety of the patient during an actual patient scan process, wherein the personalized recommendation for an actual scan procedure comprises a recommended scan protocol and a recommended scanner characteristic (see paragraph 0053).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6, 8-9, and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIXOMARA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Raymond Keith can be reached at 571-270-1790. 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.
/DIXOMARA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights