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 .
Acknowledgements
This communication is in response to Remarks filed 3/27/2026.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 15 have been rejected as follows.
Claim 16 is new.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-16 have been rejected as follows.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 4/2/2024.
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 1-16 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, 11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites an apparatus, non-transitory, computer-readable tangible recording medium, and a method for associating data.
The limitations of acquire each of an interpretation report and an […] medical record created for the same patient;
perform […] on finding information described in the interpretation report to extract one or more keywords indicating one or more first lesion information items;
perform […] on diagnosis and treatment information described in the […] medical record to extract a plurality of other keywords indicating a plurality of second lesion information items;
associate the first lesion information among the plurality of first lesion information items with second lesion information among the plurality of second lesion information items, wherein the first lesion information and the second lesion information indicating the same lesion; and
link a first description portion related to the associated first lesion information in the finding information of the interpretation report and a second description portion related to the associated second lesion information in the diagnosis and treatment information of the electronic medical record, 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. That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a data processor and memories (computer), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the data processor and memory, this claim encompasses a person acquiring an interpretation report and medical record, extracting data, associating data and linking data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The Examiner notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). 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, the claim recites the additional element of (claim 1, 11) a processor and memory, electronic (i.e., a computer) that implements the identified abstract idea. The processor and memory, electronic is not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing a generic computer functions of computing, determining, and selecting) 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of natural language processing that implements the identified abstract idea. The natural language processing is not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic NLP performing a generic computer functions) 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.
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 element of using a processor and memory, electronic 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”).
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 element of using natural language processing 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”).
Dependent Claims
Claims 2-10, and 12-14 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 2, 12 merely describes storing the description portion of the interpretation report and medical record. Claim 5 merely describes finding information to extract, generating structured information and associating information. Claim 6, 8 merely describes structured information. Claim 7 merely describes finding information, generating structured information and linking information. Claim 9 merely describes acquiring a medical image, detecting a lesion, and linking finding information.
Claim 3, 4, 10, 13, 14 also includes the additional element of “a display” which 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. Utilization of the interactive user 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. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 3, 4, 10, 13, 14 merely describes display of the interpretation report and medical record.
Claim 16 also includes the additional element of “a hyperlink” which 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. Utilization of the interactive user 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. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible. Claim 16 merely describes attaching hyperlinks and input of hyperlinks results in displaying reports.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bronkalla (US 20190333217)
CLAIM 1, 11, 15
Bronkalla teaches A medical information processing apparatus comprising: a processor; and one or more memories that store a program to be executed by the processor, wherein the processor is configured to: (Bronkalla para 7-9 teaches method, system, and non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one electronic processor, cause the at least one electronic processor to perform a set of functions)
acquire each of an interpretation report and an electronic medical record created for the same patient; (Bronkalla para 16 teaches a report source (i.e., interpretation report) and image study source (i.e., electronic medical record))
perform natural language processing on finding information described in the interpretation report to extract one or more keywords indicating one or more first lesion information items; (Bronkalla para 29 teaches processing a image report (i.e., interpretation report) and identifying medical structures or a user artifact which may include “a bone, an organ, a mass or tumor, a ligament, a muscle” and a “a suspicious lesion of the liver”. Para 3 “For example, when a report is received, the report is processed via natural language processing (NLP) to extract image features (anatomical structures, descriptions of pathology, user artifacts, medical structures, and the like), which can be compared with image features extracted from one or more images of the image study associated with the report”)
perform natural language processing on diagnosis and treatment information described in the electronic medical record to extract a plurality of other keywords indicating a plurality of second lesion information items; (Bronkalla para 32 teaches processing an image study (i.e., electronic medical record) to analyze pixels to identify anatomical structures in an image. Para 6 “The set of functions includes identifying a first plurality of annotations referenced in text included in a medical image report using natural language processing, identifying a second plurality of annotations in images included in a medical image study associated with the medical image report, and comparing the first plurality of annotations and the second plurality of annotations.”)
associate first lesion information among the plurality of first lesion information items with second lesion information among the plurality of second lesion information items, wherein the first lesion information and the second lesion information indicating the same lesion; and (Bronkalla para 33 teaches comparing features to determine if the features match (i.e., are the same). Para 6 “In response to a first annotation included in the first plurality of annotations and a second annotation included in the second plurality of annotations matching, the set of functions also includes creating a data link between the medical image report an image included in the medical image study including the second annotation, and inserting the data link into the medical image report, the data link selectable to display the image.”. Para 31 “Accordingly, the NLP unit 114 may be configured to compare and map identified image features from a report to known features that may be extracted by the feature extraction unit 116. In some embodiments, to apply finer gradations, the NLP unit 114 may add additional layers of subdivisions to the atlas segmentation or subsequently apply additional rules to enable finer subdivisions (for example, proximal, mid, distal segments of bone or vessels, medial or lateral aspect/side of a structure, or superior vs inferior aspect).”)
link a first description portion related to the associated first lesion information in the finding information of the interpretation report and a second description portion related to the associated second lesion information in the diagnosis and treatment information of the electronic medical record. (Bronkalla para 35 teaches if the features match then a data link is created between the medical image report and at least one image. Bronkalla para 38, 43 teach linking an image study and medical report based on measurements or other image features. Para 43 further teaches these links are two way to create a link between a report and associated image where the specific report section is associated with an image feature and the image feature is associated with the specific report section. ))
CLAIM 2, 12
Bronkalla teaches store the first description portion of the interpretation report and the second description portion of the electronic medical record, which have been linked to each other, in the memory in association with each other. (Bronkalla para 27 teaches report source and image study sources stored. Para 30 teaches storing data identified in report source. Para 32 teaches storing data identified in image study. Para 30 and 32 refer to storage as a table including features of the report source and image study. Examiner notes storing of features from both source in a table is analogous to “in memory in association with each other”)
CLAIM 3, 13
Bronkalla teaches display the interpretation report on a display; and in a case where an input of the first description portion is received, display the second description portion of the electronic medical record linked to the first description portion on the display. (Bronkalla Fig 2. Shows a diagram element 230 “inserting a data link into report” and following element 235 “displaying medical image when data link is selected”. Para 35-36 teach insertion of link and display of image when link is clicked. )
CLAIM 4, 14
Bronkalla teaches display the electronic medical record on a display; and in a case where an input of the second description portion is received, display the first description portion of the interpretation report linked to the second description portion on the display. (Bronkalla para 43 teaches teach insertion of link on image and display of applicable portion of report when the link is clicked.)
CLAIM 5
Bronkalla teaches generate one or more first structured information items structured by the one or more keywords; (Bronkalla Para 30 teaches storing identified features in a table. )
determine one or more first description ranges corresponding to the one or more first lesion information items on the basis of the one or more first structured information items; (Bronkalla para 30 teaches NLP storing page numbers, line numbers, section numbers. Para 23 teaches NLP identifying particular keywords)
generate a plurality of second structured information items structured by the plurality of other keywords; (Bronkalla para 38 teaches extracting measurements (i.e., keywords) from an image study. Para 43 teaches a particular section or portion of the report being highlighted based on being a reference to the image.)
determine a plurality of second description ranges corresponding to the plurality of second lesion information items in the diagnosis and treatment information on the basis of the plurality of second structured information items; (Bronkalla para 43 teaches a particular section or portion of the report being highlighted. Examiner interprets the section being highlighted as a determination of range corresponding to the information item.)
associate the first structured information and the second structured information indicating the same lesion among the one or more first structured information items and the plurality of second structured information items; and (Bronkalla para 43 teaches a particular section or portion of the report being highlighted and displayed based on association with each other. Para 33 teaches determination of features being the same feature. Para 29 teaches the feature may be a lesion.)
link the first description range related to the associated first structured information in the finding information of the interpretation report and the second description range related to the associated second structured information in the diagnosis and treatment information of the electronic medical record. (Bronkalla para 38, 43 teach linking an image study and medical report based on measurements or other image features. Para 43 further teaches these links are two way to create a link between a report and associated image where the specific report section is associated with an image feature and the image feature is associated with the specific report section. )
CLAIM 6, 8
Bronkalla teaches wherein each of the first structured information and the second structured information includes one or more attribute information items among attribute information items of a lesion indicating a type, a site, a size, and a shape of the lesion. (Bronkalla para 29 teaches image features include medical structures such as anatomical structures (i.e., type), surgical features, medical devices, medical implants, and user artifacts including measurements (i.e., size, shape), annotations, qualitative values, labels, observations, captions, and references such as “suspicious lesion of the liver” (i.e., site))
CLAIM 9
Bronkalla teaches acquire a medical image referred to in a case where the interpretation report is created; (Bronkalla Para 24-25 teaches acquiring a medical image. para 16 teaches a report source (i.e., interpretation report) and image study source (i.e., electronic medical record).)
detect a lesion from the medical image and specify information related to a type and a position of the detected lesion; and (Bronkalla para 25-26 teaches feature extraction unit for extracting image features including anatomical structures, descriptions of pathology, and the like discussed in para 29 including anatomical structures (i.e., type), surgical features, medical devices, medical implants, and user artifacts including measurements (i.e., size, shape), annotations, qualitative values, labels, observations, captions, and references such as “suspicious lesion of the liver” (i.e., site) )
link finding information related to the lesion in the interpretation report, diagnosis and treatment information related to the lesion in the electronic medical record, and the lesion in the medical image on the basis of the specified information related to the type and the position of the lesion. (Bronkalla para 43 teaches a link between image reference and associated section of a medical report that is highlighted when the link is clicked. Para 43 further teaches these links are two way to create a link between a report and associated image where the specific report section is associated with an image feature and the image feature is associated with the specific report section.)
CLAIM 10
Bronkalla teaches display the medical image on a display; and in a case where an input indicating the lesion in the medical image is received, display the finding information and the diagnosis and treatment information linked to the lesion to be highlighted. (Bronkalla para 43 teaches a link between image reference and associated section of a medical report that is highlighted when the link is clicked. Para 43 further teaches these links are two way to create a link between a report and associated image where the specific report section is associated with an image feature and the image feature is associated with the specific report section.)
CLAIM 16
Bronkalla teaches wherein the processor links the first description portion to the second description portion by attaching a first hyperlink to the first description portion of the interpretation report and a second hyperlink to the second description portion of the electronic medical record, in response to an input of the first hyperlink in the interpretation report being received, displaying the second description portion of the electronic medical record, and in response to an input of the second hyperlink in the electronic medical record being received, displaying the first description portion of the interpretation report.. (Bronkalla para 43 teaches a link between image reference and associated section of a medical report that is highlighted when the link is clicked. Para 43 further teaches these links are two way to create a link between a report and associated image where the specific report section is associated with an image feature and the image feature is associated with the specific report section.
Para 35 “[0035] Alternatively, in response to the first plurality of image features and the second plurality of image features including a matching feature (“Yes” at block 220), a data link is created between the medical image report and at least one image (at block 225) and is inserted into the medical image report (at block 230). The data link may be inserted at a location of the matching image feature, such as a matching medical structure.”
Para 43 “[0043] It should be understood that the data link may, alternatively or in addition, be inserted into the medical image. Accordingly, when a user views the medical image, the user may be able to select the data link to automatically access the report associated with the medical image, and, in particular, the particular portion of the report referencing the medical image (or an image feature contained therein). Thus, a data link may be used to create a two-way link between a report (a section of a report) and an associated image.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronkalla (US 20190333217) in view of Bubna (US 20150317606)
CLAIM 7
specify a […] keyword […] for the finding information of the interpretation report and generate one or more first structured information items structured by the first keyword […] for each of the one or more first lesion information items; (Bronkalla para 23 teaches using a natural language processing unit, NLP, to process text in medical report and identify particular keywords such as medical features and user artifacts. Para 29 identifying medical structures or a user artifact which may include “a bone, an organ, a mass or tumor, a ligament, a muscle” and a “a suspicious lesion of the liver”. Bronkalla Para 30 teaches storing identified features in a table. )
specify a […] keyword […] for the diagnosis and treatment information of the electronic medical record and generate a plurality of second structured information items structured by the third keyword […] for each of the plurality of second lesion information items; and (Bronkalla para 38 teaches OCR on image screenshots to determine measurements (i.e., keyword) that should be linked to the report and image. Bronkalla para 38 teaches extracting measurements (i.e., keywords) from an image study. Para 43 teaches a particular section or portion of the report being highlighted based on being a reference to the image.)
link the first description portion in the finding information and the second description portion in the diagnosis and treatment information on the basis of the one or more first structured information items and the plurality of second structured information items. (Bronkalla para 38, 43 teach linking an image study and medical report based on measurements or other image features. Para 43 further teaches these links are two way to create a link between a report and associated image where the specific report section is associated with an image feature and the image feature is associated with the specific report section. )
Bronkalla does not teach:
specify a second keyword related to the one or more first keywords for the finding information of the interpretation report and generate one or more first structured information items structured by the first keyword and the second keyword for each of the one or more first lesion information items;
specify a fourth keyword related to the plurality of third keywords for the diagnosis and treatment information of the electronic medical record and generate a plurality of second structured information items structured by the third keyword and the fourth keyword for each of the plurality of second lesion information items; and
Bubna does not teach:
specify a second keyword related to the one or more first keywords for the finding information of the interpretation report and generate one or more first structured information items structured by the first keyword and the second keyword for each of the one or more first lesion information items; (Bubna para 3 teaches a first keyword in a search and at least a second keyword related to the first keyword )
specify a fourth keyword related to the plurality of third keywords for the diagnosis and treatment information of the electronic medical record and generate a plurality of second structured information items structured by the third keyword and the fourth keyword for each of the plurality of second lesion information items; and (Bubna para 3 teaches a first keyword in a search and at least a second keyword related to the first keyword. Examiner notes the third and fourth keyword in the current claim are analogous to a first and second keyword of Bubna because they are the first and second keyword specified for the medical record. )
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the noted features of Bubna with teaching of Bronkalla since the combination of the two references is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR rational A); see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). It can be seen that each element claimed is present in either Bronkalla or Bubna. Using a second (fourth) keyword related to a first (third) keyword as taught by Bosworth does not change or affect the normal linking of structured data which would be performed the same way even with the addition of using a second (fourth) keyword related to a first (third) keyword. Since the functionalities of the elements in Wiseman and Bosworth do not interfere with each other, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Prior Art Made of Record and Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20120176408 Moriya
Abstract teaches A medical image is obtained and displayed. An electronic image interpretation report of the medical image is generated and displayed. The position of a lesion region in the medical image is input. A link character linked by a hyperlink to the medical image including the input position of the lesion region is inserted into the image interpretation report in such a manner that the link character is distinguishably displayed. The distinguishably displayed link character in the image interpretation report is selected. An index representing the position of the lesion region is displayed in the medical image based on the selection of the link character.
Response to Arguments Regarding U.S.C 101 Rejection
Applicant argues pg. 12
Claim I has been amended to recite processor-executed operations that extract lesion
information indicating keywords from heterogenous medical documents, associate lesion
information indicating the same lesion based on the extracted keywords, and generate bidirectional
links between corresponding description portions.
Thus, the claimed processing is not directed to merely presenting information or
organizing human activity. Rather, the claim is directed to a specific machine-implemented
technique for extracting lesion-indicating keywords from different medical documents and
using those extracted keywords to identify corresponding lesion information across the
documents. The recited links are machine-generated pointers created as a consequence of that
keyword-based, lesion-level association, rather than an instruction for human behavior.
Accordingly, Claim I does not fall within the abstract idea of organizing human activity as
asserted by the Office.
Examiner responds:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to acquiring an interpretation report and medical record, extracting data, associating data and linking data. Applicant points to extracting lesion-indicating keywords from different medical documents using those extracted keywords to identify corresponding lesion information across the Documents which are identified as directed to an abstract idea. The recited links are not claimed as being machine-generated pointers. Applicant broadly claims “associate” and “link” in independent claims. Claim 1 recites the additional element of “natural language processing” which has been addressed in Step 2A2. For Step 2A1, the claim elements fall under a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons would follow for acquiring an interpretation report and medical record, extracting data, associating data and linking data, and therefore the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues pg. 12-13
Claim I further provides a specific improvement in the way a medical information
processing apparatus operates, by enabling lesion-level, cross-document utilization of interpretation reports and electronic medical records through keyword extraction and cross document
association that were not previously available from the documents in isolation.
Examiner responds
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the “look and feel” of a host webpage provided a technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the “look and feel” of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). Applicant identifies “lesion-level, cross-document utilization of interpretation reports and electronic medical records through keyword extraction and cross document association that were not previously available from the documents in isolation.” Here, the Applicant’s argued problem is not a technological problem caused by the (the technological environment to which the claims are confined). The problem of cross document utilization of interpretation reports and medical records through keyword extraction and cross document association was not a problem caused by the computer, it is a problem that existed and/or exists regardless of whether a computer is involved in the process. At best, Applicant’s identified problem is a management / business problem. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application.
Response to Arguments Regarding U.S.C 102/103 Rejection
Applicant argues pg. 13
Bronkalla discloses bidirectional linking between a medical image and a medical image report,
in which selection of a region in the medical image leads to display of corresponding report
text, and selection of report text leads to display of the associated image region. Thus,
Bronkalla is image-centric, and the medical image serves as the reference for the linkage.
In contrast, Claim 1 requires extracting lesion-related keywords from two different
documents (i.e., an interpretation report that descries finding information and an electronic
medical record that descries diagnosis and treatment information) through natural language
processing and associating lesion information indicating the same lesion across those two
documents. Claim 1 further links description portions in the two documents based on that
lesion-level association.
Accordingly, Bronkalla fails to disclose at least the keyword extraction and the lesion level
association between an interpretation report and an electronic medical record as recited
in Claim 1, and therefore does not anticipate Claim 1.
Examiner responds
Examiner disagrees. See claim 1 rejection and Bronkalla para 6, 31, 43.
perform natural language processing on diagnosis and treatment information described in the electronic medical record to extract a plurality of other keywords indicating a plurality of second lesion information items; (Bronkalla para 32 teaches processing an image study (i.e., electronic medical record) to analyze pixels to identify anatomical structures in an image. Para 6 “The set of functions includes identifying a first plurality of annotations referenced in text included in a medical image report using natural language processing, identifying a second plurality of annotations in images included in a medical image study associated with the medical image report, and comparing the first plurality of annotations and the second plurality of annotations.”)
associate first lesion information among the plurality of first lesion information items with second lesion information among the plurality of second lesion information items, wherein the first lesion information and the second lesion information indicating the same lesion; and (Bronkalla para 33 teaches comparing features to determine if the features match (i.e., are the same). Para 6 “In response to a first annotation included in the first plurality of annotations and a second annotation included in the second plurality of annotations matching, the set of functions also includes creating a data link between the medical image report an image included in the medical image study including the second annotation, and inserting the data link into the medical image report, the data link selectable to display the image.”. Para 31 “Accordingly, the NLP unit 114 may be configured to compare and map identified image features from a report to known features that may be extracted by the feature extraction unit 116. In some embodiments, to apply finer gradations, the NLP unit 114 may add additional layers of subdivisions to the atlas segmentation or subsequently apply additional rules to enable finer subdivisions (for example, proximal, mid, distal segments of bone or vessels, medial or lateral aspect/side of a structure, or superior vs inferior aspect).”)
link a first description portion related to the associated first lesion information in the finding information of the interpretation report and a second description portion related to the associated second lesion information in the diagnosis and treatment information of the electronic medical record. (Bronkalla para 35 teaches if the features match then a data link is created between the medical image report and at least one image. Bronkalla para 38, 43 teach linking an image study and medical report based on measurements or other image features. Para 43 further teaches these links are two way to create a link between a report and associated image where the specific report section is associated with an image feature and the image feature is associated with the specific report section. ))
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 ANDREW KYLE TAPIA whose telephone number is (703)756-1662. The examiner can normally be reached 830 - 530.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/A.K.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights