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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument for claims 1 and 5, on page 7, that Thone does not disclose retrieving a patient record responsive to a user intent, examiner disagrees. Paragraphs 19 and 54 specifically discloses that user input for changing a parameter (i.e. intent) causes other data (including prior patient data listed in paragraph 52) to be retrieved, thereby causing the parameter change output to be dependent upon the user intent and secondary information obtained according to that user intent. Therefore the argument is overcome and the previous rejection remains.
Regarding applicant’s argument for claims 12 and 14, on page 8, that Adiri does not disclose analysis of the wounds being communicated to the chatbot, examiner finds the argument moot because this limitation is not claimed. However, even if the argued limitation was claimed, Thone already discloses communication between a chatbot and a learning algorithm (paragraph 58 for example). Examiner notes that Adiri is cited merely to disclose the feature of identifying an anatomical feature included in an image. Therefore the argument is overcome and the previous rejection remains.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 2/13/26 is acknowledged, the references therein relating to the general background of applicant’s invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1) Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 12, 13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2022/0183637 by Thone et al.
2) Regarding claim 1, Thone teaches a medical imaging system configured to allow a user to interact with the medical imaging system via a chat bot, the medical imaging system comprising: a user interface configured to receive a natural language user input (figure 1, item 31; paragraphs 92 and 93; a speech input unit); a non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with instructions to implement the chat bot (paragraphs 39 and 43; communication with imaging apparatus can be through a chatbot) and configured to store data related to the medical imaging system (paragraphs 78 and 90; computing unit can comprise a CPU and various memory devices); and at least one processor in communication with the non-transitory computer readable medium configured to execute the instructions to implement the chat bot, wherein the instructions cause the at least one processor to: determine an intent of the natural language user input (paragraphs 110-113; speech is obtained and processed to determine a user’s desired adaptation of the MRI output); responsive to the intent, retrieve at least a portion of the data stored in the non-transitory computer readable medium or issue a command to be executed by the medical imaging system (paragraph 119; MRI can be commanded to capture new images with a changed parameter); and provide a natural language response to the user interface based, at least in part, on the portion of the data or the command (paragraphs 39, 40 and 93; output in response to a user changed parameter can be through a chatbot or by means of an acoustic output); and a computing system configured to store patient medical records, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: retrieve at least one patient medical record from the computing system responsive to the intent and the natural language response is further based on the at least one patient medical record (paragraphs 19, 52, 54 and 99; user input for changing a parameter [i.e. intent] causes other data [including prior patient data listed in paragraph 52] to be retrieved, thereby causing the parameter change output to be dependent upon the user intent and secondary information obtained according to that user intent).
3) Regarding claim 2, Thone teaches the medical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the at least one processor to implement a machine learning model to determine the intent of the natural language user input (paragraph 114; learning model can be utilized to determine parameter adaptation from user input).
4) Regarding claim 4, Thone teaches the medical imaging system of claim 1, further comprising a mobile device, wherein the user interface comprises at least a portion of the mobile device (paragraphs 39 and 92; input can be from a mobile device).
5) Regarding claim 7, Thone teaches the medical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the natural language user input is a text input (paragraph 100; input can be text).
6) Regarding claim 8, Thone teaches the medical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the natural language user input is an oral input (paragraph 100; input can be speech).
7) Regarding claim 9, Thone teaches the medical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the command causes the medical imaging system to change an image acquisition setting (paragraph 110; MRI settings can be changed according to user feedback).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
8) Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2022/0183637 by Thone et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2021/0042110 by Basyrov.
Thone does not specifically teach the medical imaging system of claim 2, wherein the machine learning model comprises a convolutional neural network.
Basyrov teaches the machine learning model comprises a convolutional neural network (paragraphs 113 and 214; CNN can be used for training a chatbot).
Thone and Basyrov are combinable because they are both from the chatbot field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Thone with Basyrov to add a CNN. The motivation for doing so would have been to permit automation of tasks (paragraph 214). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Thone with Basyrov to obtain the invention of claim 3.
9) Claim(s) 6, 10, 12, 13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2022/0183637 by Thone et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2020/0211697 by Adiri et al.
10) Regarding claim 6, Thone teaches the medical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to retrieve an output from a machine learning model responsive to the intent and the natural language response is further based on the output (paragraph 58; user intent causes learning algorithm to be implemented which in turn informs the response to the user intent).
Thone does not specifically teach a machine learning model trained to identify an anatomical feature in an image acquired by the medical imaging system.
Adiri teaches a machine learning model trained to identify an anatomical feature in an image acquired by the medical imaging system (paragraph 227; particular skin region of an image can be identified in response to interaction with a chatbot [paragraph 100]).
Thone and Adiri are combinable because they are both from the chatbot field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Thone with Adiri to add identifying anatomical features. The motivation for doing so would have been to detect wounds (paragraph 227). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Thone with Adiri to obtain the invention of claim 6.
11) Regarding claim 10, Adiri (as combined with Thone in the rejection of claim 6 above) teaches the medical imaging system of claim 1, wherein the user interface comprises a dialog box including a text box configured to allow the medical imaging system to receive the natural language user input and a send icon configured to allow the medical imaging system to provide the natural language user input to the at least one processor (paragraph 60; message can be sent through user interface [i.e. the chatbot of paragraph 99] after pushing a button).
12) Claim 12 is rejected in the same manner as described in the rejection of claims 1 and 6 above.
13) Claims 13, 15, 18 and 20 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejections of claims 4, 9, 2 and 2, respectively.
14) Regarding claim 16, Thone teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the command causes the medical imaging system to execute an application (paragraph 110; user input can cause a change and execution of an MRI workflow).
15) Regarding claim 17, Thone teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the application comprises at least one of an exam protocol or a measurement tool set (paragraph 110; user input can cause change to MRI workflow [i.e. an exam protocol]).
16) Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2022/0183637 by Thone et al., and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2020/0211697 by Adiri et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2016/0313906 by Kilchenko et al.
Thone does not specifically teach the medical imaging system of claim 10, wherein the user interface further comprises a cursor configured to allow a user to interact with the medical imaging system and a chat bot icon configured to cause the medical imaging system to display the dialog box responsive to the cursor hovering over the chat bot icon.
Kilchenko teaches the user interface further comprises a cursor configured to allow a user to interact with the medical imaging system and a chat bot icon configured to cause the medical imaging system to display the dialog box responsive to the cursor hovering over the chat bot icon (paragraph 70; hovering cursor can launch a chatbot).
Thone and Kilchenko are combinable because they are both from the chatbot field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Thone with Kilchenko to add launching a chatbot by hovering a cursor. The motivation for doing so would have been for an intuitive user experience. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Thone with Adiri and Kilchenko to obtain the invention of claim 11.
17) Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2022/0183637 by Thone et al., and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2020/0211697 by Adiri et al. as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2021/0042110 by Basyrov.
Claim 19 is taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683