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 .
Status of the Claims
The office action is in response to the claims filed on July 24, 2025 for the application filed on August 24, 2023, which is a U.S. National Stage of International Application No. PCT/JP2022/002489 filed on January 25, 2022, which claims priority to Japanese Application No. JP2021-030858 filed on February 26, 2021. Claims 1, 15, 20, 23-24, and 26 have been amended, and claim 14 has been canceled without prejudice or disclaimer. Claims 1-8, 10-12, 15, and 19-26 are currently pending and have been examined as discussed below.
Priority
The certified copy of the foreign priority application was filed on August 24, 2023, and it is a non-English language JP application (JP2021-030858). The certified copy of the PCT priority application was filed on August 24, 2023, and it is a non-English language PCT application (PCT/JP2022/002489). When a claim to priority and the certified copy of the foreign application are received while the application is pending before the examiner, the examiner should review the certified copy to see that it contains no obvious formal defects and that it corresponds in number, date and country to the application identified in the application data sheet for an application filed on or after September 16, 2012, or oath or declaration or application data sheet for an application filed prior to September 16, 2012. See MPEP 215(I).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome the rejections because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP 215 and 216.
Accordingly, the Office requires that English language translations of the associated non-English language foreign application and non-English language PCT application be filed, with the translations being that of the associated certified copies (of the foreign application and PCT application as filed) and submitted together with a statement that each translation of the associated certified copy is accurate.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “target image management apparatus” should be replaced with “the image capture apparatus.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8, 10-12, 15 and 19-26 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.
Examiners should determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance with the following flowchart. See MPEP 2016(III).
PNG
media_image1.png
883
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in the flowchart, Step 1 relates to the statutory categories and ensures that the first criterion is met by confirming that the claim falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention. Id. If the claim as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories (Step 1: YES), the claim must be further analyzed to determine whether it qualifies as eligible at Pathway A or requires further analysis at Step 2A to determine if the claim is directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.03(II).
For purposes of efficiency in examination, examiners may use a streamlined eligibility analysis (Pathway A) when the eligibility of the claim is self-evident, e.g., because the claim clearly improves a technology or computer functionality. See MPEP 2016.06. However, if there is doubt as to whether the applicant is effectively seeking coverage for a judicial exception itself, the full eligibility analysis (the Alice/Mayo test described in MPEP 2106(III)) should be conducted to determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or recites significantly more than the judicial exception. Id. Of particular interest, claims that could have been found eligible at Pathway A (streamlined analysis), but are subjected to further analysis at Steps 2A or Step 2B, will ultimately be found eligible at Pathways B or C. See MPEP 2016(III). Thus, if the examiner is uncertain about whether a streamlined analysis is appropriate, the examiner is encouraged to conduct a full eligibility analysis. Id.
Step 2, which is the Supreme Court’s Alice/Mayo test, is a two-part test to identify claims that are directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A) and to then evaluate if additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept (Step 2B) (also called "significantly more" than the recited judicial exception). See MPEP 2106(III).
Eligibility Step 1:
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether each claim as a whole falls within one of the statutory categories of invention (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). See MPEP 2106.03. In the instant application, claims 1-8, 10-12, 15, and 19-23 appear to be directed to a determination system (i.e., a machine), claim 24 appears to be directed to a method (i.e., a process), and claims 25 and 26 appear to be directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a manufacture).
While each one of claims 1-8, 10-12, 15, and 19-26 appears to fall within one of the statutory categories of invention, the Office has determined that the full eligibility analysis is required because there is doubt as to whether the applicant is effectively seeking coverage for a judicial exception itself. The eligibility of each claim is not self-evident at least because each claim as a whole did not appear to clearly improve a technology or computer functionality. To the contrary, each claim as a whole appeared to merely apply one or more judicial exceptions to a computer.
Accordingly, it has been determined that each one of claims 1-8, 10-12, 15, and 19-26 as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories under Step 1, and the Office proceeds with the full eligibility analysis (the Alice/Mayo test described in MPEP 2106(III)) as discussed below.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One:
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether each claim is directed to one or more of the judicial exceptions (i.e., an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon). See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). After evaluation, it has been determined that claims 1-8, 10-12, 15, and 19-26 are directed to judicial exceptions because claims 1-8, 10-12, 15, and 19-26 recite abstract ideas.
The abstract idea exception includes three groupings: (i) mathematical concepts, (ii) certain methods of organizing human activities (“CMOHA”), and (iii) mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a). The CMOHA grouping includes three sub-groupings: (i) "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles," (ii) "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions"; and (iii) "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people." See MPEP 2106.04(a). The sub-grouping "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The "mental processes" grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c).
Claims 1, 2, and 23-26 are determined to be directed to a judicial exception because abstract ideas (i.e., CMOHAs and mental processes) are recited in the claims. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract ideas identified in bold as:
A determination system comprising:
an image capture apparatus configured to capture a target image representing a target site of a body of a subject, wherein the target image is one of an X-ray image, a computed tomography image, a magnetic resonance imaging image, a positron emission tomography image, a radio isotope image, a mammographic image, an ultrasonic image, an endoscopic image, or an angiographic image;
an acquisition unit configured to control a target image management apparatus to obtain the target image representing the target site of the body of the subject;
a first generator configured to receive the target image and generate first determination information indicating a condition of the target site from the target image (CMOHA and/or mental process);
a second generator configured to receive the target image and generate feature information indicating features related to a condition of the body of the subject based on the target image used to generate the first determination information (CMOHA and/or mental process), wherein the second generator comprises a feature generation model configured to generate the feature information, the feature generation model comprising a second neural network trained using a plurality of training images of a portion of a body of a subject with identification information corresponding to one or more features in each training image; and
a display controller configured to:
receive the first determination information and the feature information and
control a display apparatus to display the first determination information and the feature information.
With further respect to claims 2 and 23, representative claim 2 further recites an abstract idea identified in bold as:
a. a third generator configured to generate region-of-interest information indicating a region of interest related to the first determination information and being a partial region of the target image (CMOHA and/or mental process),
b. wherein the display controller is configured to acquire the first determination information, the feature information, and the region-of-interest information and cause the display apparatus to display the first determination information, the feature information, and the region-of-interest information.
CMOHA:
The limitations “generate first determination information indicating a condition of the target site from the target image,” “generate feature information indicating features related to a condition of the body of the subject based on the target image used to generate the first determination information,” and “generate region-of-interest information indicating a region of interest related to the first determination information and being a partial region of the target image,” individually and in combination, amount to following rules or instructions, which is an activity of following rules or instructions included in the sub-grouping "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" encompassed by the CMOHA grouping. Accordingly, claims 1, 2, and 23-26 recite an abstract idea exception falling within the CMOHA grouping, and it is therefore determined that claims 1, 2, and 23-26 are directed to one or more judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Mental Process:
The limitations identified in bold in representative claims 1 and 2 above, individually and in combination, be practically performed in the human mind using observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). With the exception of generic computer-implemented steps (i.e., the first generator, the second generator, etc.), there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper. Accordingly, claims 1, 2, and 23-26 recite an abstract idea merely performed in a computer environment and falling within the mental process grouping, and it is therefore determined that claims 1, 2, and 23-26 are directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One.
Dependent claims 3-8, 10-12, 15, and 19-22 are directed to one or more judicial exceptions (i.e., abstract idea exceptions falling within the CMOHA grouping and/or the mental process grouping) under Step 2A, Prong One of the full eligibility analysis as follows:
Claim 3 is directed to one or more judicial exceptions (i.e., abstract ideas) under Step 2A, Prong One because abstract ideas (i.e., CMOHAs and/or mental processes) are recited in the claims. Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and carries over the abstract ideas identified in bold as:
wherein the region of interest comprises a region of interest in a process of generating the first determination information from the target image, and (CMOHA and/or mental process)
the region-of-interest information comprises information indicating a position of the region of interest in the target image.
These abstract ideas in bold, individually or in combination, simply define the associated abstract idea exceptions in claims 1 and 2. More specifically, the abstract idea “a process of generating the first determination information” is carried over from the abstract idea “generate first determination information” in claim 1, and the abstract idea “region-of-interest information” is carried over from the abstract idea “region-of-interest information” in claim 2. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above in relation to “generate first determination information” in claim 1 and “region-of-interest information” in claim 2, it is determined that the same abstract ideas carried over from associated claims 1 and 2 to claim 3 fall within the CMOHA grouping (i.e., following rules or instructions under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)) and the mental process grouping (i.e., an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); a data analysis step recited at a high level of generality such that it could practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Electric Power Group; a mental process performed on a computer under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Intellectual Ventures LLC; a mental process performed in a computer environment under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2) citing FairWarning; etc.). Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, these limitations also fall within the CMOHA grouping and the mental process grouping, and it is determined that claim 3 recites abstract ideas and therefore is directed to judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Claim 4 is directed to one or more judicial exceptions (i.e., abstract ideas) under Step 2A, Prong One because abstract ideas (i.e., CMOHAs and/or mental processes) are recited in the claim. Regarding claim 4, the abstract ideas are identified in bold as the following combination of limitations “wherein the feature information comprises identification information comprising a name of each of the features detected from the target image and position information indicating a position of each of the features in the target image”. This abstract idea, individually or in combination, simply defines the associated abstract idea exception in claim 1. More specifically, the abstract idea “the feature information” is carried over from the abstract idea “generate feature information” in claim 1. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above in relation to “the feature information” in claim 1, it is determined that the same abstract ideas carried over to claim 3 fall within the CMOHA grouping (i.e., following rules or instructions under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)) and the mental process grouping (i.e., an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); a data analysis step recited at a high level of generality such that it could practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Electric Power Group; a mental process performed on a computer under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Intellectual Ventures LLC; a mental process performed in a computer environment under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2) citing FairWarning; etc.). Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, these limitations also fall within the CMOHA grouping and the mental process grouping, and it is determined that claim 4 recites abstract ideas and therefore is directed to judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Claim 5 is directed to one or more judicial exceptions (i.e., abstract ideas) under Step 2A, Prong One because abstract ideas (i.e., CMOHAs and/or mental processes) are recited in the claim. Regarding claim 5, the abstract ideas are identified in bold as:
an image-of-interest generator configured to generate an image of interest where the region of interest is superimposed on the target image (CMOHA and/or mental process),
wherein the display controller is further configured to cause the display apparatus to display the image of interest (CMOHA).
The abstract idea “generate an image of interest” individually or in combination falls within at least the CMOHA grouping (i.e., following rules or instructions under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)) and the mental process grouping (i.e., an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); a data analysis step recited at a high level of generality such that it could practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Electric Power Group; a mental process performed on a computer under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Intellectual Ventures LLC; a mental process performed in a computer environment under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2) citing FairWarning; etc.). Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, these limitations also fall within the CMOHA grouping and the mental process grouping, and it is determined that claim 5 recites abstract ideas and therefore is directed to judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
The abstract idea “display the image of interest” individually or in combination falls within the CMOHA grouping (i.e., following rules or instructions under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Furthermore, the abstract idea “display the image of interest” in combination with the abstract idea “generate an image of interest where the region of interest is superimposed on the target image” falls within at least the mental process grouping (i.e., collecting, analyzing, and displaying information with the data analysis step being recited at a high level of generality such that it could practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Electric Power Group). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “the target image” includes the target image acquired by the acquisition unit in claim 1 and thus amounts to collected information. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “generate an image of interest” includes the activity of determining an image of interest, i.e., based on an analysis of information (i.e., analyzing the target image and the region of interest). This data analysis step is recited at a high level of generality at least because the claim does not recite any particular way how to generate the image of interest. Instead, the claim merely recites as an idea of solution or outcome. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “display the image of interest” amounts to displaying the results of the collection and analysis of information (i.e., the region of interest and the target image). Accordingly, the abstract idea “display the image of interest” in combination with the abstract idea “generate an image of interest where the region of interest is superimposed on the target image” falls within at least the mental process grouping, and it is determined that claim 5 recites abstract ideas and therefore is directed to judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Claim 6 is directed to one or more judicial exceptions (i.e., abstract ideas) under Step 2A, Prong One because abstract ideas (i.e., CMOHAs and/or mental processes) are recited in the claim. Regarding claim 6, the abstract ideas are identified in bold as:
a feature image generator configured to generate a first feature image where the feature information is superimposed on the target image and/or a second feature image where the feature information and the region-of-interest information are superimposed on the target image, (CMOHA and/or mental process)
wherein the display controller is configured to cause the display apparatus to display the first feature image and/or the second feature image. (CMOHA)
The abstract idea “generate a first feature image… and/or a second feature image” individually or in combination falls within at least the CMOHA grouping (i.e., following rules or instructions under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)) and the mental process grouping (i.e., an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); etc.). The combination of limitations “a feature image generator configured to generate a first feature image … and/or a second feature image” individually or in further combination falls within at least the mental process grouping (a data analysis step recited at a high level of generality such that it could practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Electric Power Group; a mental process performed on a computer under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Intellectual Ventures LLC; a mental process performed in a computer environment under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2) citing FairWarning; etc.). Accordingly, these limitations also fall within the CMOHA grouping and the mental process grouping, and it is determined that claim 6 recites abstract ideas and therefore is directed to judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
The abstract idea “display the first feature image and/or the second feature image” individually or in combination falls within the CMOHA grouping (i.e., following rules or instructions under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)) and the mental process grouping (i.e., display step combined with a data analysis step recited at a high level of generality such that it could practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Electric Power Group; etc.). Accordingly, these limitations fall within the CMOHA grouping and the mental process grouping, and it is determined that claim 6 recites abstract ideas and therefore is directed to judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Claim 7 is directed to one or more judicial exceptions (i.e., abstract ideas) under Step 2A, Prong One because abstract ideas (i.e., CMOHAs and/or mental processes) are recited in the claim. Regarding claim 7, the abstract ideas are identified in bold as: “wherein the display controller is further configured to cause the display apparatus to display the image of interest and the second feature image alongside each other.”
The abstract idea “display the image of interest and the second feature image alongside each other” individually or in combination falls within the CMOHA grouping (i.e., following rules or instructions under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)) and the mental process grouping (i.e., display step combined with a data analysis step recited at a high level of generality such that it could practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Electric Power Group; etc.). Accordingly, these limitations fall within the CMOHA grouping and the mental process grouping, and it is determined that claim 7 recites abstract ideas and therefore is directed to judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Claim 8 is directed to one or more judicial exceptions (i.e., abstract ideas) under Step 2A, Prong One because abstract ideas (i.e., CMOHAs and/or mental processes) are recited in the claim. Regarding claim 8, the abstract ideas are identified in bold as: “wherein the display controller is configured to cause the display apparatus to simultaneously display (1) the first determination information, (2) the region-of-interest information, and (3) the feature information.” The abstract idea “simultaneously display (1) the first determination information, (2) the region-of-interest information, and (3) the feature information” individually or in combination falls within the CMOHA grouping (i.e., following rules or instructions under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)) and the mental process grouping (i.e., display step combined with a data analysis step recited at a high level of generality such that it could practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Electric Power Group; etc.). Accordingly, these limitations fall within the CMOHA grouping and the mental process grouping, and it is determined that claim 8 recites abstract ideas and therefore is directed to judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Claim 10 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) under Step 2A, Prong One because an abstract idea (i.e., a CMOHA and/or mental process) is recited in the claim. Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and carries over the abstract idea identified in bold: “wherein the first determination information comprises diagnostic information comprising diagnostic results related to whether the subject has a disorder.” This abstract idea simply defines the abstract idea “generate first determination information” in claim 1 as discussed above. Accordingly, the abstract idea falls within the CMOHA grouping (i.e., following rules or instructions under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)) and the mental process grouping (i.e., an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); a data analysis step recited at a high level of generality such that it could practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Electric Power Group; a mental process performed on a computer under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Intellectual Ventures LLC; a mental process performed in a computer environment under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2) citing FairWarning; etc.). Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, these limitations also fall within the CMOHA grouping and the mental process grouping, and it is determined that claim 10 recites abstract ideas and therefore is directed to judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Claim 11 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) under Step 2A, Prong One because an abstract idea (i.e., a CMOHA and/or mental process) is recited in the claim. Regarding claim 11, the abstract idea is identified in bold as: “wherein the first generator comprises a determination information generation model configured to generate the first determination information by using the target image of the subject.” This abstract idea, individually or in combination, falls within the CMOHA grouping (i.e., following rules or instructions under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)) and the mental process grouping (i.e., an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); a data analysis step recited at a high level of generality such that it could practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Electric Power Group; a mental process performed on a computer under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Intellectual Ventures LLC; a mental process performed in a computer environment under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2) citing FairWarning; etc.). Accordingly, these limitations also fall within the CMOHA grouping and the mental process grouping, and it is determined that claim 11 recites abstract ideas and therefore is directed to judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Claim 12 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) under Step 2A, Prong One because the abstract idea (i.e., CMOHA and/or mental process) is recited in the claim. Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and recites the abstract idea identified in bold as: “wherein the determination information generation model comprises a first neural network trained by using patient information, as teaching data, related to a plurality of patients each having a disorder in a target site, and the patient information comprises diagnostic information indicating diagnostic results related to a condition of a target site and a medical image of each of the plurality of patients.” The abstract idea individually or in combination simply defines “determination information generation model configured to generate the first determination information by using the target image of the subject” in claim 11. Accordingly, the abstract idea falls within the CMOHA grouping (i.e., following rules or instructions under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)) and the mental process grouping (i.e., an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); a data analysis step recited at a high level of generality such that it could practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Electric Power Group; a mental process performed on a computer under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Intellectual Ventures LLC; a mental process performed in a computer environment under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2) citing FairWarning; etc.). Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, these limitations also fall within the CMOHA grouping and the mental process grouping, and it is determined that claim 12 recites abstract ideas and therefore is directed to judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Claim 15 is directed to one or more judicial exceptions (i.e., abstract ideas) under Step 2A, Prong One because abstract ideas (i.e., CMOHAs and/or mental processes) are recited in the claim. Claim 15 depends from claim 1 and recites the abstract ideas identified in bold as:
each of the plurality of training images is further associated with identification information comprising a name and an annotation of each of the features detected in the respective training image from the patient image and position information indicating a position of each of the features in the respective training image (CMOHA and mental process), and
wherein machine learning using backpropagation with application of an R-CNN is performed on the feature generation model (mathematical concept).
These limitations, individually or in combination, define the abstract idea of “the feature generation model configured to generate feature information, the feature generation model comprising a second neural network trained using a plurality of training images of a portion of a body of a subject with identification information corresponding to one or more features in each training image” in claim 1. Accordingly, the abstract idea falls within the CMOHA grouping (i.e., following rules or instructions under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)) and the mental process grouping (i.e., an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); a mental process performed in a computer environment under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2) citing FairWarning; etc.). Furthermore, the limitation of “machine learning using backpropagation with application of an R-CNN is performed on the feature generation model,” individually in combination with the other limitations, is a mathematical calculation and thus amounts to a mathematical concept. Accordingly, these limitations fall within the CMOHA grouping, the mental process grouping, and the mathematical concept grouping, and it is determined that claim 15 recites an abstract idea exception under Step 2A, Prong One.
Claim 19 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) under Step 2A, Prong One because an abstract idea (i.e., a CMOHA and/or mental process) is recited in the claim. Claim 19 depends from claim 1 and carries over the abstract idea identified in bold as: “wherein the first determination information comprises information used to determine the condition of the target site at a second time after elapse of a predetermined period since a first time when the target image is captured.” This limitation individually or in combination defines “generate first determination information” in claim 1. Accordingly, the abstract idea falls within the CMOHA grouping (i.e., following rules or instructions under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)) and the mental process grouping (i.e., an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); a data analysis step recited at a high level of generality such that it could practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Electric Power Group; a mental process performed on a computer under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Intellectual Ventures LLC; a mental process performed in a computer environment under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2) citing FairWarning; etc.). Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, these limitations also fall within the CMOHA grouping and the mental process grouping, and it is determined that claim 19 recites abstract ideas and therefore is directed to judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Claim 20 is directed to one or more judicial exceptions (i.e., abstract ideas) under Step 2A, Prong One because abstract ideas (i.e., CMOHAs and/or mental processes) are recited in the claim. Regarding claim 20, the abstract ideas are identified in bold as:
a fourth generator configured to generate, in response to the first generation instruction, from the first determination information, second determination information indicating a method of medical intervention for the subject and an effect of the medical intervention, (CMOHA and mental process)
wherein the display controller is configured to cause the display apparatus to display the first determination information, the feature information generated from the target image used to generate the first determination information, and the second determination information.
The abstract idea “generate, from the first determination information, second determination information” individually or in combination falls within at least the CMOHA grouping (i.e., following rules or instructions under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)) and the mental process grouping (i.e., an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); etc.). The combination of limitations “a fourth generator configured to generate, from the first determination information, second determination information” individually or in further combination falls within at least the mental process grouping (i.e., a display step combined with a data analysis step recited at a high level of generality such that it could practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Electric Power Group; a mental process performed on a computer under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Intellectual Ventures LLC; a mental process performed in a computer environment under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2) citing FairWarning; etc.). Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, these limitations also fall within the CMOHA grouping and the mental process grouping, and it is determined that claim 20 recites abstract ideas and therefore is directed to judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
The abstract idea “display the first determination information, the feature information …, and the second determination information” individually or in combination falls within the CMOHA grouping (i.e., following rules or instructions under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)) and the mental process grouping (i.e., display step combined with a data analysis step recited at a high level of generality such that it could practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Electric Power Group; etc.). Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, these limitations fall within the CMOHA grouping and the mental process grouping, and it is determined that claim 20 recites abstract ideas and therefore is directed to judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Claim 21 is directed to one or more judicial exceptions (i.e., abstract ideas) under Step 2A, Prong One because abstract ideas (i.e., CMOHAs and/or mental processes) are recited in the claim. Regarding claim 21, the abstract ideas are identified in bold as: “wherein the fourth generator comprises an intervention effect determination model configured to receive input of the first determination information of the subject and output the second determination information indicating a method of intervention for the subject and an effect of the intervention.” These abstract ideas, individually or in combination, simply define abstract idea exceptions in claims 1 and 20. More specifically, this abstract idea individually or in combination defines the abstract idea “a first generator configured to generate first determination information” in claim 1 and “second determination information” in claim 20. These abstract ideas individually or in combination fall within the CMOHA grouping (i.e., following rules or instructions under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)) and the mental process grouping (i.e., an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); a data analysis step recited at a high level of generality such that it could practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Electric Power Group; a mental process performed on a computer under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Intellectual Ventures LLC; a mental process performed in a computer environment under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2) citing FairWarning; etc.). Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, these limitations also fall within the CMOHA grouping and the mental process grouping, and it is determined that claim 21 recites abstract ideas and therefore is directed to judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Claim 22 is directed to one or more judicial exceptions (i.e., abstract ideas) under Step 2A, Prong One because abstract ideas (i.e., CMOHAs and/or mental processes) are recited in the claim. Regarding claim 22, the abstract ideas are identified in bold as: “wherein the intervention effect determination model comprises a third neural network trained by using effect information, as teaching data, of each of a plurality of patients who have undergone intervention for a disorder in the target site, and the effect information comprises information where the intervention provided for the target site of each of the plurality of patients and intervention effect information indicating the effect of the intervention are associated for each of the plurality of patients.” The abstract idea individually or in combination simply defines “the intervention effect determination model configured to receive input of the first determination information of the subject and output the second determination information” in claim 21. This abstract idea individually or combination falls within the CMOHA grouping (i.e., following rules or instructions under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)) and the mental process grouping (i.e., an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); a data analysis step recited at a high level of generality such that it could practically be performed in the human mind under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Electric Power Group; a mental process performed on a computer under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing Intellectual Ventures LLC; a mental process performed in a computer environment under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2) citing FairWarning; etc.). Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, these limitations also fall within the CMOHA grouping and the mental process grouping, and it is determined that claim 22 recites abstract ideas and therefore is directed to judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong Two:
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether the claims recite any additional limitations individually or in combination that integrate a judicial exception (i.e., the identified abstract ideas) into a practical application. After evaluation, it has been determined that claims 1-8, 10-12, 15, and 19-26 do not recite any additional elements individually or in combination that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
A number of considerations provided in MPEP 2106.04(d)(2), MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), and MPEP 2106.05(e) through (h) are relevant to determining whether any additional elements individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception (i.e., the abstract ideas defined as mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or CMOHAs) into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). These considerations require an evaluation of the claims to determine whether the additional limitations individually or in combination:
effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition under MPEP 2106.04(d)(2);
reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvements to any other technology or technical field under MPEP 2106.05(a);
implement the judicial exception with, or using the judicial exception in connection with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim under MPEP 2106.05(b);
effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing under MPEP 2106.05(c);
apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition under MPEP 2106.05(e);
are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer under MPEP 2106.05(f);
amount to no more than a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception under MPEP 2106.05(g); and
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 under MPEP 2106.05(h), such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Regarding claims 1 and 23-26, the additional elements of representative claim 1 are identified in bold as:
a. A determination system comprising:
b. an image capture apparatus configured to capture a target image representing a target site of a body of a subject, wherein the target image is one of an X-ray image, a computed tomography image, a magnetic resonance imaging image, a positron emission tomography image, a radio isotope image, a mammographic image, an ultrasonic image, an endoscopic image, or an angiographic image;
c. an acquisition unit configured to control a target image management apparatus to obtain the target image representing the target site of the body of the subject;
d. a first generator configured to receive the target image and generate first determination information indicating a condition of the target site from the target image;
e. a second generator configured to receive the target image and generate feature information indicating features related to a condition of the body of the subject based on the target image used to generate the first determination information, wherein the second generator comprises a feature generation model configured to generate the feature information, the feature generation model comprising a second neural network trained using a plurality of training images of a portion of a body of a subject with identification information corresponding to one or more features in each training image; and
f. a display controller configured to:
g. receive the first determination information and the feature information and
h. control a display apparatus to display the first determination information and the feature information.
Regarding claims 2 and 23, the additional limitations of representative claim 2 are identified in bold as:
a third generator configured to generate region-of-interest information indicating a region of interest related to the first determination information and being a partial region of the target image,
wherein the display controller is configured to acquire the first determination information, the feature information, and the region-of-interest information and cause the display apparatus to display the first determination information, the feature information, and the region-of-interest information.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.04(d)(2), claims 1 and 23-26 include the additional limitations identified in bold as “a determination system,” “an image capture apparatus configured to capture a target image representing a target site of a body of a subject, wherein the target image is one of an X-ray image, a computed tomography image, a magnetic resonance imaging image, a positron emission tomography image, a radio isotope image, a mammographic image, an ultrasonic image, an endoscopic image, or an angiographic image,” “an acquisition unit configured to control a target image management apparatus to obtain the target image representing the target site of the body of the subject,” “a first generator configured to receive the target image,” “a second generator configured to receive the target image,” “the second generator comprises a feature generation model configured to generate the feature information, the feature generation model comprising a second neural network trained using a plurality of training images of a portion of a body of a subject with identification information corresponding to one or more features in each training image,” and “a display controller configured to receive the first determination information and the feature information and control a display apparatus to display the first determination information and the feature information.” Each one of claims 1 and 23-26 as a whole does not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis, and is instead merely instructions to “apply” the abstract idea in a generic way. Thus, each one of the claims as whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(a), each one of claims 1 and 23-26 as a whole does not “purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field.” It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Each claim as a whole does not include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. Thus, it is determined that each of the claims as a whole and the additional elements, individually or in combination, fail to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(b), each one of claims 1 and 23-26 as a whole merely adds generic computer components (i.e., the determination system, the image capture apparatus, the acquisition unit, the first generator, the second generator, the feature generation model, the second neural network, the display controller, the display apparatus, etc.) to perform conventional computer functions and thus do not qualify as a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(1). Thus, each one of the claims as whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(f), each one of the additional limitations in bold above is determined to be mere instructions to apply an abstract idea. These limitations are used to implement the abstract ideas recited at a high level of generality and are determined to be no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas (i.e., CMOHA and mental processes) on generic computer components including the determination system, the image capture apparatus, the acquisition unit, the first generator, the second generator, the feature generation model, the second neural network, the display controller, the display apparatus. Accordingly, for these additional reasons, each one of claims 1 and 23-26 as a whole does not recite additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(g), the limitations of “an image capture apparatus configured to capture a target image representing a target site of a body of a subject, wherein the target image is one of an X-ray image, a computed tomography image, a magnetic reson