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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 26 May 2026, the following occurred: Claims 1, 8, and 9 have been amended.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Priority
This application claims priority to JP2023-016138 dated 06 February 2023.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claim. In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest the specific sequence of: first identifying an abnormal site based on arm swing data and determining whether the abnormal site has worsened or improved over time using video recordings, then determining a candidate disease, then querying the patient to determine the actual disease based on whether the abnormal site was adjudged to have worsened or improved, presenting the query, and then storing the information into an EMR.
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 1-9 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium (“CRM”) for abnormal site of a subject on the basis of an image of the subject, which are within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
The limitations of (Claim 8 being representative) calculating a swinging angle of an arm or a shoulder of a subject based on a video of the subject; detecting an abnormal site of the subject based on the calculated swinging angle […]; judging whether the abnormal site worsened or improved by comparing, in a time series, changes or differences in movements of the abnormal site based on a plurality of videos of the subject; extracting a disease candidate; specifying a query for performing a diagnosing process on the disease candidate based on a judgement result as to whether the abnormal site worsened or improved; presenting the query; and reading an electronic medical record of the subject to record information about at least one of the abnormal site, the disease candidate and the query; detect the abnormal site of the subject by performing […] a feature analysis and a scene analysis; in the feature analysis, read the video of the subject, and extract, […] features of the patient […]; and in the scene analysis, convert […] the video into […] data, analyze […] sites of the patient, and evaluate movements of each of the sites, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The Examiner notes that Claim 8 is not tied to any particular structure and is thus purely directed to an abstract idea. That is, other than reciting a system and CRM implemented by a computer / processor, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. The Examiner note that the Specification at Pg. 7, Lns. 22-25 describes the “processing circuitry” of claims 1-7 as a generic computer processor. For example, but for the computer / processor, this claim encompasses a person looking at an image of a person, determining a candidate disease. Formulating a question, and providing the question in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1 and 9 recite the additional element of a computer and/or processor that implements the identified abstract idea. It is noted that Claim 8 is not confined to any technological environment. The computer / processor is not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer or components thereof) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim further recites the additional element of using an AI algorithm having Deep Learning (DL). The using an AI algorithm having Deep Learning (DL) merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Alternately, using an AI algorithm having Deep Learning (DL) equates to saying “apply it.” MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer and/or processor to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an AI algorithm having Deep Learning (DL) was determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Alternately, the additional element of using an AI algorithm having Deep Learning (DL) was determined to be “apply it.” This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
In the interest of completeness, the Examiner notes that image (video frame) segmentation using Artificial Intelligence is also well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art as evidenced by:
US 20250339101 at Para. 0154
US 20230238117 at Para. 0044
US 20220092806 at Para. 0003
US 12290414 at Col. 37, Lns. 60-67
Claims 2-7 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim(s) 2 merely describe(s) merely describe(s) how/where the candidate disease is extracted. Claim(s) 3 merely describe(s) to whom the query is presented. Claim(s) 4 merely describe(s) adding the query to a questionnaire. Claim(s) 5 merely describe(s) the location of the video. Claim(s) 6 merely describe(s) the abnormal site. Claim(s) 7 merely describe(s) displaying image information.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-9, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Accordingly, the independent claims are fundamentally different from merely "managing personal behavior" or "interaction between people," as alleged by the Office Action.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim remains directed to an abstract idea in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity. The newly-added additional element of performing image segmentation using AI/Deep Learning was analyzed as an additional element and determined to merely generally link the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The prior art of record also indicates that this additional element is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of healthcare, meaning is cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. The Examiner also notes that, while not relied upon in the basis of rejection, humans perform segmentation of imaged using AI/Deep Learning all the time via computers. This is how radiology and video analysis works.
In particular, the claimed subject matter cannot reasonably be performed mentally by a human simply "looking at an image," because the claims expressly require AI-based Deep Learning processing, conversion of video data into segmentable data, segmentation analysis of body sites, calculation of swinging angles, and evaluation of movements of segmented body sites over time.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully submits that the abstract idea was not characterized as a mental process. The Applicant appears to be confusing mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. Further, a human is certainly capable of analyzing multivideo data and calculating “calculation of swinging angles, and evaluation of movements of segmented body sites over time.” How this is performed is not even actually claimed and there is no evidence on record that humans cannot perform these features. Finally, the use of AI / Deep Learning to analyze the image data (i.e., segmenting the image) is applying a well-understood, routine, and conventional technique as a tool. This cannot provide a practical application or significantly more.
Further, the claimed subject matter improves computerized medical-assistance technology by enabling automatic detection of subtle abnormal movements and referred-pain-related symptoms that may not be recognized by patients themselves.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that this is an improvement to the abstract idea, not an improvement to the computer (which is the field of the claimed invention).
The claims therefore recite significantly more than merely presenting medical information or asking questions, because the claims are directed to a particular computerized image-processing and movement-analysis technique that automatically detects abnormal body movements from video data.
Regarding (d), the Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons noted above. Significantly more is not present in the claims.
In particular, the claims do not merely invoke a generic computer as a tool for performing conventional data processing.
Regarding (e), the Examiner respectfully submits that this is exactly what is occurring. There is no step performed by the computer that is not generic (i.e., calculating, detecting, performing, etc.). The data that is used in these steps is specific, byut that is the abstraction. The actual data processing steps performed by the computer are purely generic. If they are not generic, Applicant would have an insurmountable written description issue because none of the supposed non-generic computer processing steps are described.
The Examiner cannot suggest a path forward with regard to the lack of subject matter eligibility of the disclosed invention.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Heinrich et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2016/0150966) which discloses monitoring a patient using video analysis techniques to determine of the patient’s condition is worsening or improving.
Boettger et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2023/0238117) which discloses a system for analyzing patient medical images based on semantic data.
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 JASON S TIEDEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4594. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-4:00pm, off alternate Fridays.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at 571-272-6773. 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.
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights