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 Application
Claims 1,3,7,9-10,12-13 and 15-16 are currently pending in this case and have been examined and addressed below. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the Amendments to the Claims and Remarks filed on 03/03/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 16 are currently amended.
Claims 2,4-6,8,11 and 14 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/09/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1,10, and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 are each indefinite because Examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim based on the recitation of “a success of activation” in line 22 of claims 1 and line 20 of claim 10.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the medical imaging apparatus” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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 1,3,7,9-10,12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1,3,7,9,12-13 and 15-16 are drawn to a machine. Claim 10 is drawn to a process. As such, claims 1,3,7,9-10,12-13 and 15-16 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Independent Claim 1: A medical information processing device, comprising:
processing circuitry;
an analysis result database in which analysis result data generated based on medical image data analyzed by an automatic analysis device in the past and supplementary information of the medical image data are stored in association with each other;
and a determination result database in which supplementary information in a plurality of analysis applications, an application activation rule, and a success or a failure of activation of an analysis application are stored, the processing circuitry being configured to:
before analysis of medical image data by the automatic analysis device is started: acquire, from the automatic analysis device, first information including medical image data obtained by a scan performed by a medical image scanner and supplementary information of the medical image data, and second information including an application activation rule regarding an analysis application selected for analyzing the medical image data from among the plurality of analysis applications;
search the analysis result database for analysis result data based on the first information and the second information, and determine a possibility of failure of analysis of the medical image data by the selected analysis application based on information on success or failure of analysis included in the analysis result data obtained by the search of the analysis result database,
and correct the application activation rule based on an application activation rule corresponding to a success of activation of the selected analysis application acquired from the determination result database upon determining that a possibility of failure of analysis of the medical image data exceeds a threshold,
and transmit the corrected application activation rule to the automatic analysis device,
and after the analysis of medical image data by the automatic analysis device is started,
acquire analysis result data information transmitted by the automatic analysis device and acquire a correctness or an incorrectness of an analysis result using the selected analysis application depending on whether the acquired analysis result data information includes any of successful analysis data and failed analysis data;
generate correction information for correcting construction conditions for constructing the medical image data upon acquiring the incorrectness of the analysis result, and transmit the correction information to the automatic analysis device;
and control the medical image scanner to construct the medical image data again using the corrected construction conditions.
Independent Claim 10: A medical information processing method, using a computer, an analysis result database in which analysis result data generated based on medical image data analyzed by an automatic analysis device in the past and supplementary information of the medical image data are stored in association with each other, and a determination result database in which supplementary information in a plurality of analysis applications, an application activation rule, and success or failure of activation of an analysis application are stored, the method comprising:
before analysis of medical image data by the automatic analysis device is started:
acquiring, from the automatic analysis device, first information including medical image data obtained by a scan performed by a medical image scanner and supplementary information of the medical image data, and second information including an application activation rule regarding an analysis application selected for analyzing the medical image data from among the plurality of analysis applications;
searching the analysis result database for analysis result data based on the first information and the second information, and determining a possibility of failure of analysis of the medical image data by the selected analysis application based on information on success or failure of analysis included in the analysis result data obtained by the search of the analysis result database;
and correcting the application activation rule based on an application activation rule corresponding to a success of activation of the selected analysis application acquired from the determination result database upon determining that a possibility of failure of analysis of the medical image data exceeds a threshold,
and transmitting the corrected application activation rule to the automatic analysis device,
and after the analysis of medical image data by the automatic analysis device is started,
acquiring analysis result data information transmitted by the automatic analysis device and acquire a correctness or an incorrectness of an analysis result using the selected analysis application depending on whether the acquired analysis result data information includes any of successful analysis data and failed analysis data;
generating correction information for correcting construction conditions for constructing the medical image data upon acquiring the incorrectness of the analysis result,
and transmitting the correction information to the automatic analysis device;
and controlling the medical image scanner to construct the medical image data again using the corrected construction conditions.
(Examiner notes: The above claim terms underlined are additional elements that fall under Step 2A - Prong Two analysis section detailed below)
These steps amount to methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation; advertising, marketing, and sales activities or behaviors; and managing human mental activity (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). Therefore, acquiring first information including medical image data, supplementary information of the medical image data, and second information including an application activation rule regarding an analysis application selected for analyzing the medical image data from among the plurality of analysis applications, searching for analysis result data based on the first information and the second information, and determining a possibility of failure of analysis of the medical image data by the selected analysis application based on information on success or failure of analysis included in the analysis result data, correcting the application activation rule based on an application activation rule corresponding to a success of activation of the selected analysis application upon determining that a possibility of failure of analysis of the medical image exceeds a threshold, acquiring analysis of medical image data information, acquiring a correctness or an incorrectness of an analysis result using the selected analysis application depending on whether the acquired analysis result data information includes any of successful analysis data and failed analysis data, and generating correction information for correcting construction conditions for constructing the medical image data upon acquiring the incorrectness of the analysis result are directed to managing personal interactions or personal behavior.
The dependent claim 3 is directed to generate the correction information for correcting the construction conditions for constructing the medical image data upon determining that the possibility of failure exceeds the threshold and provide the generated correction information.
The dependent claim 7 is directed to the construction conditions include reconstruction conditions at a time of generating reconstructed medical image data by reconstructing original medical image data.
The dependent claim 9 is directed to generate the correction information based on the first information and the second information generated in the past, and the construction conditions when an analysis result using the analysis application selected based on the first information and the second information is correct.
The dependent claim 12 is directed to acquire, when the analysis result data information includes successful analysis data, the correctness or the incorrectness of the analysis result using the selected analysis application depending on whether the successful analysis data includes any of success identification information and failure identification information, acquire the correctness of the analysis result when the successful analysis data includes the success identification information, and acquire the incorrectness of the analysis result when the successful analysis data includes the failure identification information.
The dependent claim 13 is directed to generate change information for changing reconstruction function conditions used to reconstruct the medical image data when incorrectness of the analysis result is acquired in a case where the successful analysis data includes the failure identification information.
The dependent claim 15 is directed to a case of the successful analysis data including the failure identification information is a case where a data viewer has determined that analysis has failed.
The dependent claim 16 is directed to perform reconstruction again using a different reconstruction function in response to analysis result data information.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims 3, 7, 9, 12-13, and 15-16 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1 and 10 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements analyzed below in the expected manner.
As such, the Examiner concludes that the preceding claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 recite the use of a medical information processing device, only as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)). The claims further recite the use of a scan performed by a medical image scanner only as being used in its ordinary capacity and is merely a tool to execute the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 16 recite the use of a processing circuitry, only as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
Claims 1 and 10 recite the use of an analysis result database, automatic analysis device, determination result database, transmit the corrected application activation rule to the automatic analysis device, transmit the correction information to the automatic analysis device, and control the medical image scanner to construct the medical image data using the corrected construction conditions, only as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
Claim 16 recites the use of the medical imaging apparatus scanner, which is configured to generate the medical image data by scanning a patient and performing reconstruction, the medical imaging apparatus being one of an X-ray computed tomography (CT) apparatus, an X-ray diagnostic apparatus, an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) apparatus, and a nuclear medicine diagnostic apparatus, only as being used in its ordinary capacity and is merely a tool to execute the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements, such as the medical information processing device, processing circuitry, analysis result database, automatic analysis device, determination result database, a scan performed by a medical image scanner, transmit the corrected application activation rule to the automatic analysis device, transmit the correction information to the automatic analysis device, control the medical image scanner to construct the medical image data using the corrected construction conditions, and the medical imaging apparatus scanner, which is configured to generate the medical image data by scanning a patient and performing reconstruction, the medical imaging apparatus being one of an X-ray computed tomography (CT) apparatus, an X-ray diagnostic apparatus, an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) apparatus, and a nuclear medicine diagnostic apparatus in independent claims 1 and 10 and dependent claims 3, 7, 9, 12-13, and 15-16 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer. Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of the computer and data processing devices to apply the algorithm. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”). Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements are directed to generic computer component and functions being used to perform the abstract idea.
Applicant’s own disclosure on page 4 acknowledges that “the automatic analysis device…includes, for example, a communication interface 21, an input interface 22, a display 23, processing circuitry 30, and a memory 50”. Additionally, page 5 acknowledges that the "processing circuitry 30 includes, for example, an image data acquisition function 31, a selection function 32, an analysis function 33, and a generation function 34. The processing circuitry 30 realizes these functions by a hardware processor (computer) executing a program stored in a memory (storage circuit) 50, for example. The hardware processor means, for example, circuitry such as a CPU, a graphics processing unit (GPU), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), and a programmable logic device (e.g., a simple programmable logic device (SPLD), a complex programmable logic device (CPLD), and a field programmable gate array (FPGA))…The hardware processor is not limited to being configured as a single circuit, and may be configured as one hardware processor by combining a plurality of independent circuits to realize each function. Further, a plurality of components may be integrated into one hardware processor to realize each function. The memory 150 stores a determination result DB 151 ". Page 9 discloses that the “the analysis result DB 70 may be included in the automatic analysis device 20”. Furthermore, page 10 discloses the “medical information processing device 100 includes, for example, a communication interface 110, an input interface 120, a display 130, processing circuitry 140, and a memory 150.”
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1,3,7,9-10,12-13 and 15-16 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 17-21, filed 03/02/2026 with respect to claims 1 and 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended limitations integrate an abstract idea into a practical application by reciting an improvement to medical imaging technology, similarly to Claims 1 and 2 of Example 40. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite an improvement to medical imaging technology. Claims 1 and 2 of Example 40 are directed to monitoring traffic data through a network appliance, therefore the claims were an improvement to the technology of monitoring traffic data. The pending claims merely recite acquiring first information including medical image data, supplementary information of the medical image data, and second information including an application activation rule regarding an analysis application selected for analyzing the medical image data from among the plurality of analysis applications, searching for analysis result data based on the first information and the second information, and determining a possibility of failure of analysis of the medical image data by the selected analysis application based on information on success or failure of analysis included in the analysis result data, correcting the application activation rule based on an application activation rule corresponding to a success of activation of the selected analysis application upon determining that a possibility of failure of analysis of the medical image exceeds a threshold, acquiring analysis of medical image data information, acquiring a correctness or an incorrectness of an analysis result using the selected analysis application depending on whether the acquired analysis result data information includes any of successful analysis data and failed analysis data, and generating correction information for correcting construction conditions for constructing the medical image data upon acquiring the incorrectness of the analysis result, which are a part of the abstract idea. An improvement to the abstract ideas of acquiring first information including medical image data, supplementary information of the medical image data, and second information including an application activation rule regarding an analysis application selected for analyzing the medical image data from among the plurality of analysis applications, searching for analysis result data based on the first information and the second information, and determining a possibility of failure of analysis of the medical image data by the selected analysis application based on information on success or failure of analysis included in the analysis result data, correcting the application activation rule based on an application activation rule corresponding to a success of activation of the selected analysis application upon determining that a possibility of failure of analysis of the medical image exceeds a threshold, acquiring analysis of medical image data information, acquiring a correctness or an incorrectness of an analysis result using the selected analysis application depending on whether the acquired analysis result data information includes any of successful analysis data and failed analysis data, and generating correction information for correcting construction conditions for constructing the medical image data upon acquiring the incorrectness of the analysis result does not amount to an improvement to technology or a technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II) stating “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology."). The courts indicated in TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48, that gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and providing the output is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim language and instant application fails to provide details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Here, the improvement is to acquiring first information including medical image data, supplementary information of the medical image data, and second information including an application activation rule regarding an analysis application selected for analyzing the medical image data from among the plurality of analysis applications, searching for analysis result data based on the first information and the second information, and determining a possibility of failure of analysis of the medical image data by the selected analysis application based on information on success or failure of analysis included in the analysis result data, correcting the application activation rule based on an application activation rule corresponding to a success of activation of the selected analysis application upon determining that a possibility of failure of analysis of the medical image exceeds a threshold, acquiring analysis of medical image data information, acquiring a correctness or an incorrectness of an analysis result using the selected analysis application depending on whether the acquired analysis result data information includes any of successful analysis data and failed analysis data, and generating correction information for correcting construction conditions for constructing the medical image data upon acquiring the incorrectness of the analysis result. There is no indication in the disclosure that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology for the outlined problem statement. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.
Applicant argues that the amended limitations are directed to significantly more than an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claim limitations are directed to acquiring first information including medical image data, supplementary information of the medical image data, and second information including an application activation rule regarding an analysis application selected for analyzing the medical image data from among the plurality of analysis applications, searching for analysis result data based on the first information and the second information, and determining a possibility of failure of analysis of the medical image data by the selected analysis application based on information on success or failure of analysis included in the analysis result data, correcting the application activation rule based on an application activation rule corresponding to a success of activation of the selected analysis application upon determining that a possibility of failure of analysis of the medical image exceeds a threshold, acquiring analysis of medical image data information, acquiring a correctness or an incorrectness of an analysis result using the selected analysis application depending on whether the acquired analysis result data information includes any of successful analysis data and failed analysis data, and generating correction information for correcting construction conditions for constructing the medical image data upon acquiring the incorrectness of the analysis result. The use of the medical information processing device, processing circuitry, analysis result database, automatic analysis device, determination result database, a scan performed by a medical image scanner, transmit the corrected application activation rule to the automatic analysis device, transmit the correction information to the automatic analysis device, control the medical image scanner to construct the medical image data using the corrected construction conditions, and the medical imaging apparatus scanner, which is configured to generate the medical image data by scanning a patient and performing reconstruction, the medical imaging apparatus being one of an X-ray computed tomography (CT) apparatus, an X-ray diagnostic apparatus, an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) apparatus, and a nuclear medicine diagnostic apparatus to carry out the steps of the abstract idea is merely applying the abstract idea to general purpose computer components which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exceptions, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The courts indicated in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984, that “a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer” is not enough to qualify as significantly more.
Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 limitations should be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, since that the claims in Yamada (‘447) application are not remarkably different from the present invention claims. The argument has been considered but are moot because the Yamada reference is no longer relied upon for any teaching or matter of the pending claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-17, filed 03/02/2026 with respect to claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 12-14, and 15-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 prior art rejection of 11/28/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the combination of the ‘447, ‘615, ‘713, ‘572, ‘979, ‘897, ‘478, and ‘476 references do not teach or suggest the amended limitations. Examiner finds this persuasive. The amended Claim 1 recites the following limitations that overcame the prior art:
“and correct the application activation rule based on an application activation rule corresponding to a success of activation of the selected analysis application acquired from the determination result database upon determining that a possibility of failure of analysis of the medical image data exceeds a threshold, and transmit the corrected application activation rule to the automatic analysis device,”
The prior art does not disclose correcting the application activation rule selected to analyze the medical image data after the analysis application failed to successfully analyze the medical image.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boroczky et al. (US 20090175531 A1) teaches on a method that realizes a reduction in a number of false positive detections for a CAD image analysis process.
Boroczky et al. (US 7840062 B2) teaches on a method that uses a CAD image analysis process to classify regions of interest.
Wall (US 9704207 B2) teaches on administering medical digital images for medical image caching.
Oala, Luis et al. “Detecting failure modes in image reconstructions with interval neural network uncertainty.” (2021) teaches using interval neural networks to determine failure modes in image reconstruction.
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 KRYSTEN N WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)272-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 - 5 pm, ET.
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, Fonya Long can be reached on (571)270-5096. 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.
/K.N.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/FONYA M LONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights