3Response to Argument/Amendment
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 .
Applicant’s response to the last Office Action dated 03/05/2026, as well as arguments and amendments to claims, filed 05/29/2026 have been entered and made of record.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are pending. Claim 10 is newly presented, and claim 4 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objection to the title have been fully considered and the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 7-9 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. With the incorporation of the indicated allowable subject matter of claim 4, the rejection of claims 1 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that the features recited in claim 1 cannot practically be performed in a human mind and are directed to improvement to existing technology and integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments of Applicant. Examiner respectfully submits that the limitations of claim fall under the combination of the groupings of abstract ideas of mental processes and mathematical calculations, i.e., a concept performed in the human mind, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion of a technician/doctor through mathematical calculations to obtain an angle between axes. Examiner also submits that the features of claim 1 do not recite additional elements or combination of elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. Additionally, the new analysis of the amended claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is as follows:
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (an abstract idea without significantly more). The claims recite a method, a storage medium, and apparatuses for processing images by identifying regions, adding lines and points, and calculating an angle. With respect to analysis of Claim 1:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claim is directed to an apparatus; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, the limitations of “specify, based on a left atrium region, a left ventricle region, and an aortic valve region rendered in the three-dimensional medical image data, a three- chamber long-axis cross-sectional plane that traverses across these regions; specify a mitral valve axis based on a first annulus region included in a mitral valve region rendered in the three-dimensional medical image data and the three-chamber long-axis cross-sectional plane; to specify, from the three-chamber long-axis cross-sectional plane, an anterior leaflet region included in the mitral valve region and a second annulus region included in the aortic valve region; derive a middle point between two intersection points at which the second annulus region intersects the three-chamber long-axis cross-sectional plane and an approximate straight line based on coordinates of a plurality of intersection points between the three-chamber long-axis cross-sectional plane and the anterior leaflet region; specify a straight line that passes through the middle point and extends parallel to the approximate straight line as an aortic valve axis; and calculate an angle based on the mitral valve axis and the aortic valve axis.”, as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as the combination of an apparatus and using mathematical calculations/drawings that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation manually or in the mind of a medical professional. That is, a skilled technician or a doctor may specify different regions of the heart and draw axes on medical image data. The skilled technician or doctor may also calculate an angle based on the axes manually, using a pen and a paper, or even in the mind. This is the concept that falls under the combination of the groupings of abstract ideas of mental processes and mathematical calculations, i.e., a concept performed in the human mind, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion of a technician/doctor through mathematical calculations to obtain an angle between axes.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, there are no additional elements/limitations in the claims, with the exception of the insignificant extra-solution activities, such as obtaining medical image data of a heart as input data. This limitation is regarded as insignificant extra solution activity of acquiring medical image data, i.e., gathering input information, which may not be considered as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the above-mentioned additional element/limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. Additionally, the recited “processing circuitry”, in the claim, merely introduces a generic computer component to perform the abstract idea, and is not regarded as a specialized machine.
Step 2B:
Because the claims fail under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/limitations, amount to no more than insignificant routine and conventional elements. The abstract operation/purpose of the apparatus as listed in Claim 1, cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, independent Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Furthermore, with regard to newly added dependent claim 10, viewed individually, the additional elements/limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are regarded as adding limitations that are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea; which do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 10 merely adds displaying the abstract idea, and is considered insignificant extra solution activity. Accordingly, claim 10 is not patent eligible.
With regard to amended independent claims 7, 8, and 9, the 35 U.S.C. 101 claim analysis is performed in the same manner as claim 1, since the claims do not add any substantially different limitations from claim 1. Thus, claims 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the same manner as claim 1, and are not patent eligible.
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 JUSTIN M. OAKES whose telephone number is (571)272-9379. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/JUSTIN M OAKES/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/Siamak Harandi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights