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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the claims as a whole are not directed to the abstract idea of a mental process, rather the claims are directed to a specific improvement in the analysis of a medical report presenting clinical content determined from one or more images. Examiner asserts that an improvement to the analysis of a medical report with clinical content from images is still directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. Further, there is no indication that the use of the vectors, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a process that cannot be practically be performed in the human mind; there is no indication of claimed “high dimensional data” nor the use of multimodal fusion from text and image imbedding that would consider the use of the vectors as being impractically generated in the human mind. Furter as noted in the updated rejection, the use of an encoder to determine style feature vectors and a trained neural network to extract embeddings to be used for determining content feature vectors recites mere computer implementation of the abstract idea. Additionally, Applicant argues that the step addresses a specific technology problem, namely the need for accurate and efficient extraction of clinical content from medical reports. Examiner further asserts that the accurate and efficient extraction of data is not a specific technology or technical field improvement, and the use of computational techniques is recited in a generic manner that does not demonstrate a technology improvement. As a whole, Examiner asserts that, as analyzed, the claims as a whole recites an abstract idea that is implemented on generic computing technologies. The use of large datasets for training when using components such as the encoder and neural network as described in the claim amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components.
Applicant further argues that the claims integrate the exception into a practical application, and that the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by sufficiently limiting the use of the alleged abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Examiner asserts, as noted in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis as reproduced below, there is no indication of specific technologies in the additional elements being used to carry out the abstract idea to demonstrate a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(a)II, particularly “Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” Further, the use of a medical report presenting clinical content determined from one or more images recites abstract determining steps of the clinical content and merely changing this information in a report, which recites a mental process that can be used with a physical aid such as pen and paper and does not limit the abstract idea. Use of the text embeddings, content feature vectors, and style feature vectors were analyzed to be abstract and does not demonstrate a practical application. Because of the generality of the additional elements related to the system to merely carry out the abstract idea, there is no indication of a very specific application of a system configured to analyze a medical report, and the claims do not incorporate any judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 USC 102, Examiner agrees and therefore this rejection is withdrawn.
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, 5-14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
It is appropriate for the Examiner to determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test as recited in the following Steps: 1, 2A, and 2B, see MPEP 2106(III.).
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 1:
First, the Examiner is to establish whether the claim falls within any statutory category including a process, a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, see MPEP 2106.03(II.) and MPEP 2106.03(I).
Claims 14-19 are related to a system, and claim 20 is also related to a method (i.e., a process). Claims 1-13 are related to a method. Accordingly, these claims are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong One:
Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test demonstrates whether a clam is directed to a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(I.). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, where Prong One establishes the judicial exception. Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes, see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(1.) and 2106.04(a)(2).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea as underlined in the following limitations. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method of analyzing a medical report presenting clinical content determined from one or more images, the method comprising:
obtaining a medical report presenting clinical content determined from one or more images, the medical report comprising a style;
extracting a text embedding from the medical report;
extracting, using a trained neural network, an image embedding from the one or more images;
determining one or more content feature vectors from the text embedding and the image embedding, the one or more content feature vectors being indicative of clinical content presented in the medical report, wherein the one or more determined content feature vectors are not indicative of the style of the medical report;
determining, using a style encoder, one or more style feature vectors from the text embedding, the one or more style feature vectors being indicative of a style of the medical report, wherein the one or more determined style feature vectors are not indicative of the clinical content presented in the medical report; and
converting the medical report to a target style using the determined one or more content feature vectors and the determined one or more target style feature vectors.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute a “mental process”, as the following abstract limitations are related to analyzing a medical report presenting clinical content determined from one or more images:
“extracting” a text embedding from a medical report, which is an observation and collection of the abstract representation of text from the medical report,
“extracting” an image embedding from images, which is an observation and collection of the abstract representation of image data from the images,
“determining” one or more content feature vectors from the embeddings, where the vectors are “indicative” of clinical content in the report where they are not indicative of the style of the report; this is an abstract limitation of an observation of clinical content from the vectors, where the vectors are abstract representations of data that can be determined in the human mind,
“determining” one or more style feature vectors from the text embedding, where the style vectors are “indicative” of the style of the medical report where the style feature vectors are not indicative of the clinical content in the report, which is an abstract limitation of an observation of the style features of the report from the abstract vectors, where the vectors are abstract representations of data that can be determined in the human mind,
“converting” the report to a style using the determined one or more content feature vectors and determined target style feature vectors, which is an abstract limitation of a judgement of a target style that can be applied for the medical report by using the abstract vectors.
The claim limitations as a whole recite steps for analyzing a medical report presenting clinical content determined from one or more images. The steps recite abstract observations, analysis, judgments and collection of data that can practically be performed in the human mind, and therefore recite a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III.)(A.).
Regarding claim 14:
An apparatus, comprising:
at least one electronic processor programmed to:
obtain a medical report presenting clinical content determined from one or more images, the medial report comprising a style;
extract a text embedding from a medical report;
extract, using a trained neural network, an image embedding from one or more images;
determine one or more content feature vectors from the text embedding and the image embedding, the one or more content feature vectors being indicative of clinical content presented in the medical report, wherein the one or more determined content feature vectors are not indicative of the style of the medical report;
determine, using a style encoder, one or more style feature vectors from only the extracted text embedding, the one or more style feature vectors being indicative of a style of the medical report, wherein the one or more determined style feature vectors are not indicative of the clinical content presented in the medical report; and
extract one or more clinical findings contained in the medical report using the one or more determined content feature vectors.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute a “mental process”, as the following abstract limitations are related to analyzing a medical report presenting clinical content determined from one or more images:
“extracting” a text embedding from a medical report, which is an observation and collection of the abstract representation of text from the medical report,
“extracting” an image embedding from images, which is an observation and collection of the abstract representation of image data from the images,
“determining” one or more content feature vectors from the embeddings, where the vectors are “indicative” of clinical content in the report and where the one or more determined content feature vectors are not indicative of the style of the report; this is an abstract limitation of an observation of clinical content from the vectors, where the vectors are abstract representations of data that can be determined in the human mind,
“determining” one or more style feature vectors from only the extracted text embedding, where the style vectors are “indicative” of the style of the medical report and where the determined style feature vectors are not indicative of the clinical content in the report, which is an abstract limitation of an observation of the style features of the report from the abstract vectors, where the vectors are abstract representations of data that can be determined in the human mind, and
“extract” clinical findings contained in the medical report using the content feature vectors, which is an abstract limitation of using the abstract vectors to collect the clinical findings.
The claim limitations as a whole recite steps that are related to analyzing a medical report presenting clinical content determined from one or more images. The steps recite abstract observations, analysis, judgments and collection of data that can practically be performed in the human mind, and therefore recite a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III.)(A.).
Regarding claim 20:
A method of analyzing a medical report presenting clinical content determined from one or more images, the method comprising:
obtaining a medical report presenting clinical content determined from one or more images, the medical report comprising a style;
extracting a text embedding from the medical report;
extracting, using a trained neural network, an image embedding from the one or more images;
determining one or more content feature vectors from the text embedding and the image embedding, the one or more content feature vectors being indicative of clinical content presented in the medical report, wherein the one or more determined content feature vectors are not indicative of the style of the medical report;
determining, using a style encoder, one or more style feature vectors from only the text embedding, the one or more style feature vectors being indicative of a style of the medical report, wherein the one or more determined style feature vectors are not indicative of the clinical content presented in the medical report;
scoring the style of the medical report using the one or more determined style feature vectors; and
converting the medical report to a target style using the determined one or more content feature vectors and the determined one or more target style feature vectors.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute a “mental process”, as the following abstract limitations are related to analyzing a medical report presenting clinical content determined from one or more images:
“extracting” a text embedding from a medical report, which is an observation and collection of the abstract representation of text from the medical report,
“extracting” an image embedding from images, which is an observation and collection of the abstract representation of image data from the images,
“determining” one or more content feature vectors from the embeddings, where the vectors are “indicative” of clinical content in the report where the determined content feature vectors are not indicative of the style of the report; this is an abstract limitation of an observation of clinical content from the vectors, where the vectors are abstract representations of data that can be determined in the human mind,
“determining” one or more style feature vectors from the text embedding, where the style vectors are “indicative” of the style of the medical report, which is an abstract limitation of an observation of the style features of the report from the abstract vectors where the one or more determined style feature vectors are not indicative of the clinical content in the report, where the vectors are abstract representations of data that can be determined in the human mind,
“scoring” the style of the medical report using the one or more determined style feature vectors, which is an abstract limitation related to an analysis of the style of the report using the abstract vectors, and
“converting” the report to a style using the content feature vectors and style vectors which is different from the determined ones, which is an abstract limitation of a judgement of a target style that can be applied for the medical report by using the abstract vectors.
The claim limitations as a whole recite steps for analyzing a medical report presenting clinical content determined from one or more images. The steps recite abstract observations, analysis, judgments and collection of data that can practically be performed in the human mind, and therefore recite a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III.)(A.).
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., processor) and will be discussed in further detail below.
Accordingly, the independent claims as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fails to make the abstract idea any less abstract as noted below:
Claim 8 recites abstract limitations of outputting clinical finding label vectors, where the vectors are abstract, and “labeling” the content features vectors with ground truth findings to generate ground truth vectors, thus further describing the abstract idea. Claim 9 recites abstract limitations of outputting text embeddings and “determining” if the style feature vectors are independent of the content feature vectors, thus further describing the abstract idea. Claim 10 recites further abstract limitation further describing the style of the medical report including wordings where one or more clinical findings are articulated, further describes the abstract idea. Claim 11 recites further abstract limitations of describing the style of the medical report which includes one or more placements of the clinical findings in sections of the report, which further describes the abstract idea. Claim 12 recites further abstract limitations of describing the style of the medical report which includes the use of one or more modifier words, which further describes the abstract idea. Claim 13 recites how the reports in the abstract idea are radiology reports, further describing the abstract idea.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrates the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exceptions into a “practical application,” see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(2.) and 2106.04(d)(I.).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
Regarding claim 1:
A computer-implemented method of (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) analyzing a medical report presenting clinical content determined from one or more images, the method comprising:
obtaining a medical report presenting clinical content determined from one or more images, the medical report comprising a style (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.);
extracting a text embedding from the medical report;
extracting, using a trained neural network, (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) an image embedding from the one or more images;
determining one or more content feature vectors from the text embedding and the image embedding, the one or more content feature vectors being indicative of clinical content presented in the medical report, wherein the one or more determined content feature vectors are not indicative of the style of the medical report;
determining, using a style encoder (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), one or more style feature vectors from the text embedding, the one or more style feature vectors being indicative of a style of the medical report, wherein the one or more determined style feature vectors are not indicative of the clinical content presented in the medical report; and
converting the medical report to a target style using the determined one or more content feature vectors and the determined one or more target style feature vectors.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of the computer implementation of the method, use of a trained neural network, and use of a style encoder, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0035] of Applicant’s Specification recites the overall computing system that uses generic processors, which recites how these steps are computer implemented. [0027, 0030] recites the use of a generic trained neural network to carry out parts of the abstract idea related to the vectors. [0028] recites the use of a generic neural network that is used as the style encoder. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Regarding the additional limitation of obtaining a medical report presenting clinical content determined from one or more images, the medical report comprising a style, this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). [0035] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of databases that stores reports where they can be retrieved from. The use of the databases to store and retrieve the reports are used to perform actions for the system including data gathering for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activities.
Claims 14 and 20 recites similar additional elements and are analyzed in a similar manner. Additionally, claim 14 recites the overall system as being an apparatus comprising at least one electronic processor programmed to perform the abstract idea steps, where the apparatus is further described in [0035] of the Applicant’s Specification. Again, these additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to analyze a medical report, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, see MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set below:
Claims 5 and 17 recite additional elements of training models of a content encoder and an annotator using training data of text embeddings of training medical reports as described, however the generic use of encoders and annotators along with training these models to carry out the abstract step without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Claims 6 and 18 recite additional elements of training models of encoders and report generators, however the generic use of encoders and annotators along with training these models to carry out the abstract step without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Claim 7 recites additional elements of the use of a NN for the encoders, however the generic use of a NN for the models without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Claim 8 recites additional elements of training the content encoder and the annotator using the vectors, however the generic recitation of training models to carry out the abstract step without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Claim 9 recites additional elements of training the report generator and style encoder using the vector data, however the generic recitation of training models to carry out the abstract step without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Thus, taken alone and in ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, the independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(II.). Further, it may need to be established, when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, that the additional elements recite well understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 1:
Regarding the additional limitation of the computer implementation of the method, use of a trained neural network, and use of a style encoder, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0035] of Applicant’s Specification recites the overall computing system that uses generic processors, which recites how these steps are computer implemented. [0027, 0030] recites the use of a generic trained neural network to carry out parts of the abstract idea related to the vectors. [0028] recites the use of a generic neural network that is used as the style encoder. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding the additional limitation of obtaining a medical report presenting clinical content determined from one or more images, the medical report comprising a style, this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”). [0035] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of databases that stores reports where they can be retrieved from. The use of the databases to store and retrieve the reports are used to perform actions for the system including data gathering for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activities and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The retrieval of the reports from storage recites well understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Claims 14 and 20 recites similar additional elements and are analyzed in a similar manner. Additionally, claim 14 recites the overall system as being an apparatus comprising at least one electronic processor programmed to perform the abstract idea steps, where the apparatus is further described in [0035] of the Applicant’s Specification. Again, these additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and therefore claims 1, 5-14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS whose telephone number is (571)272-6719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Jason B Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. 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.
/CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3686