DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
This Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on 1/24/2024.
Claims
Claims 1-16 are currently pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) that was filed on 1/24/2024 has been considered.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-14 are directed to an apparatus, claim 15 is directed to a method, and claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 15 recites determining a process based on status information when closing a medical image. Specifically, the claim recites “receiving a close instruction for one or more medical images…; collecting status information indicating any of a first status, a second status, or a third status, the first status being a status according to a creation status of a latest interpretation report for the first medical image that is a target of the instruction and indicating that the interpretation report has been created, the second status indicating that the interpretation report is incomplete, the third status corresponding to neither the first status nor the second status; and determining processing according to the status information for the first medical image”, which is grouped within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test because the claims involve determining a process based on status information when closing a medical image which falls under the category of concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; MPEP § 2106.04(a)). Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus that performs the same functions of claim 15 and claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions that causes a computer to perform the same functions of claim 15. Therefore Claims 1 and 16 are also directed to the abstract idea of determining a process based on status information when closing a medical image.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional element(s) of claims 1, 15, and 16, such as the use of the one or more processors, one or more memories, information processing apparatus, display device, and computer readable storage medium, merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the one or more processors, one or more memories, information processing apparatus, display device, and computer readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of determining a process based on status information when closing a medical image. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 15, and 16 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.05), the additional element(s) of using a one or more processors, one or more memories, information processing apparatus, display device, and computer readable storage medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of determining a process based on status information when closing a medical image. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the one or more processors, one or more memories, information processing apparatus, display device, and computer readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of determining a process based on status information when closing a medical image. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-14 further describe the abstract idea.
Claim 2 further recites the abstract idea of providing a notification of a confirmation of whether to close the first medical image based on the status information.
Claim 3 further recites the abstract idea of continuing an open state of the medical image based on the status information.
Claim 4 further recites the abstract idea of closing the first medical image without providing a notification of a confirmation of whether to close the first medical image based on the status information.
Claim 5 further recites the abstract idea of closing one or more medical images. The use of the display device to display the medical images is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of computers.
Claim 6 further recites the abstract idea of determining whether to provide a notification of confirmation as to whether to close the medical images based on status information.
Claim 7 further recites the abstract idea of determining whether to leave the medical image open or to close the medical image based on the status information.
Claim 8 further recites the abstract idea of determining the status of the first medical image based on information represented by a character string input.
Claim 9 further recites the abstract idea of determining the status of the first medical image by applying a trained learning model.
Claim 10 further recites the abstract idea of determining a status of the medical image based on whether or not there is an existing interpretation report.
Claim 11 further recites the abstract idea of determining a status of the medical image based on whether or not there is a character string present in the interpretation report.
Claim 12 further recites the abstract idea of receiving an input indicating completion of the interpretation report and changing the status of the first medical image.
Claim 13 further recites the abstract idea of closing the first medical image without providing a notification of a confirmation of whether to close the first medical image based on the status information
Claim 14 further recites the abstract idea of determining the status of the first medical image based on an examination date and time at which the first medical image was generated.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The use of the one or more processors are merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Rejections under 35 § U.S.C. 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all
obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120027178 A1 (“Mabini”) and US 20120239431 A1 (“Hayashi”) and US 20090083074 A1 (“Shioe”).
Per claims 1, 15, and 16, Mabini discloses:
one or more processors (e.g. The various embodiments and/or components, for example, the processors, or components and controllers therein, also may be implemented as part of one or more computers or processors. The computer or processor may include a computing device, an input device, a display unit and an interface, for example, for accessing the Internet. The computer or processor may include a microprocessor and/or a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU). The microprocessor may be connected to a communication bus. The computer or processor may also include a memory. The memory may include Random Access Memory (RAM) and Read Only Memory (ROM). The computer or processor further may include a storage device, which may be a hard disk drive or a removable storage drive such as a floppy disk drive, optical disk drive, and the like) (Section [0046]-[0049]);
one or more memories in which instruction to be executed by the one or more processors are stored (e.g. The various embodiments and/or components, for example, the processors, or components and controllers therein, also may be implemented as part of one or more computers or processors. The computer or processor may include a computing device, an input device, a display unit and an interface, for example, for accessing the Internet. The computer or processor may include a microprocessor and/or a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU). The microprocessor may be connected to a communication bus. The computer or processor may also include a memory. The memory may include Random Access Memory (RAM) and Read Only Memory (ROM). The computer or processor further may include a storage device, which may be a hard disk drive or a removable storage drive such as a floppy disk drive, optical disk drive, and the like) (Section [0046]-[0049]);
collect status information indicating any of a fist status, a second status, or a third status… (e.g. Prior to closing an exam, in various embodiments, if no images or sequences have been saved to a permanent store memory, a user may be prompted and requested to confirm that none of the images or sequences are to be stored or to store one or more of the images or sequences) (Section [0038]-[0042]);
determine processing according to the status information for the first medical image (e.g. Prior to closing an exam, in various embodiments, if no images or sequences have been saved to a permanent store memory, a user may be prompted and requested to confirm that none of the images or sequences are to be stored or to store one or more of the images or sequences) (Section [0038]-[0042]).
Although Mabini discloses determining processing according to the status information of a medical image when a user closes them, Mabini does not specifically disclose:
receive an instruction to close one or more medical images displayed on a display device;
…the first status being a status according to a creation status of a latest interpretation report for a first medical image that is a target of the instruction and indicating that the latest interpretation report has been created, the second status indicating that the latest interpretation report is incomplete, the third status corresponding to neither the first status nor the second status.
However Hayashi, in analogous art of medical image interpretation, discloses:
receive an instruction to close one or more medical images displayed on a display device (e.g. When quitting of the display of the image for the selected examination is instructed through the operation unit 22 (YES in Step S17), the RAM 25 and the specific-operation authorization-extension file 164 are referred to confirm the operation that has been performed (Step S18). The quitting of the display of an examination may be instructed, for example, by operation of searching for next examination from the examination list, closing the displayed viewer screen, or clicking the "quit interpretation" button appearing on the viewer screen) (Section [0073]-[0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image viewer user interface of Mabini to include the use of a close document interaction, as taught by Hayashi, in order to achieve the predictable result of providing convenience to the user by allowing them to close an image or move onto the next image when they are done.
Although Mabini/Hayashi discloses receiving an instruction to close one or more medical images and determining processing according to the status information of a medical image when a user closes them, Mabini/Hayashi does not specifically disclose:
…the first status being a status according to a creation status of a latest interpretation report for a first medical image that is a target of the instruction and indicating that the latest interpretation report has been created, the second status indicating that the latest interpretation report is incomplete, the third status corresponding to neither the first status nor the second status.
However Shioe, in analogous art of medical image interpretation, discloses:
…the first status being a status according to a creation status of a latest interpretation report for a first medical image that is a target of the instruction and indicating that the latest interpretation report has been created, the second status indicating that the latest interpretation report is incomplete, the third status corresponding to neither the first status nor the second status (e.g. The status information for the inspection request has three status; one where neither the inspection nor the image interpretation has been yet done, one where only the image interpretation has not been done yet and one where both the inspection and image interpretation have been already completed. The status item in the inspection request list 60 is displayed based on the status information. The status of the status information and one displayed in the inspection request list 60 are, however, not limited to the above-mentioned three) (Section [0059], [0070], [0071], and Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medical image interpretation system/method of Mabini/Hayashi to include the use of 3 different medical image statuses, as taught by Shioe, in order to achieve the predictable result of providing convenience to the user by allowing them to easily identify which medical images still need to be interpreted.
Per claim 2, Mabini/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Mabini further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to, in a case where the status information of the first medical image indicates the first status or the second status, execute processing of providing notification of a confirmation of whether to close the first medical image, as the processing according to the status information (e.g. Prior to closing an exam, in various embodiments, if no images or sequences have been saved to a permanent store memory, a user may be prompted and requested to confirm that none of the images or sequences are to be stored or to store one or more of the images or sequences) (Section [0038]-[0042]).
Per claim 3, Mabini/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Mabini further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to, in a case where the status information of the first medical image indicates the first status or the second status, execute processing of continuing an open state of the first medical image, as the processing according to the status information (e.g. Prior to closing an exam, in various embodiments, if no images or sequences have been saved to a permanent store memory, a user may be prompted and requested to confirm that none of the images or sequences are to be stored or to store one or more of the images or sequences) (Section [0038]-[0042]).
Per claim 4, Mabini/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Mabini further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to, in a case where the status information of the first medical image indicates the third status, execute processing of closing the first medical image without performing processing of providing notification of a confirmation of whether to close the first medical image, as the processing according to the status information (e.g. Prior to closing an exam, in various embodiments, if no images or sequences have been saved to a permanent store memory, a user may be prompted and requested to confirm that none of the images or sequences are to be stored or to store one or more of the images or sequences) (Section [0038]-[0042]).
Per claim 5, Mabini/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Hayashi further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive an instruction to close an examination image group including the one or more medical images, as the instruction to close the one or more medical images displayed on the display device (e.g. When quitting of the display of the image for the selected examination is instructed through the operation unit 22 (YES in Step S17), the RAM 25 and the specific-operation authorization-extension file 164 are referred to to confirm the operation that has been performed (Step S18). The quitting of the display of an examination may be instructed, for example, by operation of searching for next examination from the examination list, closing the displayed viewer screen, or clicking the "quit interpretation" button appearing on the viewer screen) (Section [0073], [0074], and [0077]).
The motivation to combine Hayashi with Mabini/Shioe is disclosed above with reference to claims 1, 15, and 16.
Per claim 6, Mabini/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 5 above. Mabini further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: in a case where the close instruction for the examination image group is received and the status information of the first medical image included in the examination image group indicates the first status or the second status, execute processing of providing notification of a confirmation of whether to close all the medical images included in the examination image group, as the processing according to the status information (e.g. Prior to closing an exam, in various embodiments, if no images or sequences have been saved to a permanent store memory, a user may be prompted and requested to confirm that none of the images or sequences are to be stored or to store one or more of the images or sequences) (Section [0038]-[0042]);
in a case where the close instruction for the examination image group is received and the status information of the first medical image included in the examination image group indicates the third status, execute processing of closing all the medical images included in the examination image group without performing the processing of providing notification of the confirmation of whether to close all the medical images, as the processing according to the status information (e.g. Prior to closing an exam, in various embodiments, if no images or sequences have been saved to a permanent store memory, a user may be prompted and requested to confirm that none of the images or sequences are to be stored or to store one or more of the images or sequences) (Section [0038]-[0042]).
Per claim 7, Mabini/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 5 above. Mabini further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: in a case where the close instruction for the examination image group is received and the status information of the first medical image included in the examination image group indicates the first status or the second status, execute processing of continuing an open state of all the medical images included in the examination image group, as the processing according to the status information (e.g. Prior to closing an exam, in various embodiments, if no images or sequences have been saved to a permanent store memory, a user may be prompted and requested to confirm that none of the images or sequences are to be stored or to store one or more of the images or sequences) (Section [0038]-[0042]);
in a case where the close instruction for the examination image group is received and the status information of the first medical image included in the examination image group indicates the third status, execute processing of closing all the medical images included in the examination image group without performing processing of providing notification of a confirmation of whether to close all the medical images, as the processing according to the status information (e.g. Prior to closing an exam, in various embodiments, if no images or sequences have been saved to a permanent store memory, a user may be prompted and requested to confirm that none of the images or sequences are to be stored or to store one or more of the images or sequences) (Section [0038]-[0042]).
Per claim 8, Mabini/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Shioe further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the status of the first medical image based on information represented by a character string input in a case of creating the latest interpretation report (e.g. The inspection request list 60 has fields to display, for example, the date when the inspection request is received, patient's name, request department, requesting doctor's name, inspection item and status of the inspection request. In the field of the status, for example, "Waiting for inspection" is displayed when neither the inspection nor the Image interpretation has been done. When the inspection has been finished but the Image interpretation has not been completed, "Waiting for Image interpretation" is displayed. When both the inspection and Image interpretation have been completed, "End" is displayed) (Section [0058], [0059], [0069]-[0071], and Fig. 4).
The motivation to combine Shioe with Mabini/Hayashi is disclosed above with reference to claims, 1, 15, and 16.
Per claim 10, Mabini/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Shioe further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: determine whether or not there is an interpretation report corresponding to the first medical image; in a case where there is an interpretation report corresponding to the first medical image, determine the status information for the first medical image to be the first status; and in a case where there is no interpretation report corresponding to the first medical image, determine the status information for the first medical image to be the second status (e.g. The inspection request list 60 has fields to display, for example, the date when the inspection request is received, patient's name, request department, requesting doctor's name, inspection item and status of the inspection request. In the field of the status, for example, "Waiting for inspection" is displayed when neither the inspection nor the Image interpretation has been done. When the inspection has been finished but the Image interpretation has not been completed, "Waiting for Image interpretation" is displayed. When both the inspection and Image interpretation have been completed, "End" is displayed) (Section [0058], [0059], [0069]-[0071], and Fig. 4).
The motivation to combine Shioe with Mabini/Hayashi is disclosed above with reference to claims, 1, 15, and 16.
Per claim 11, Mabini/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Shioe further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: determine whether or not a character string is present in an interpretation report for an anatomical structure included in the first medical image (e.g. The inspection request list 60 has fields to display, for example, the date when the inspection request is received, patient's name, request department, requesting doctor's name, inspection item and status of the inspection request. In the field of the status, for example, "Waiting for inspection" is displayed when neither the inspection nor the Image interpretation has been done. When the inspection has been finished but the Image interpretation has not been completed, "Waiting for Image interpretation" is displayed. When both the inspection and Image interpretation have been completed, "End" is displayed) (Section [0058], [0059], [0069]-[0071], and Fig. 4);
in a case where the character string is present in the interpretation report for the anatomical structure included in the first medical image, determine the status information for the first medical image to be the first status (e.g. The inspection request list 60 has fields to display, for example, the date when the inspection request is received, patient's name, request department, requesting doctor's name, inspection item and status of the inspection request. In the field of the status, for example, "Waiting for inspection" is displayed when neither the inspection nor the Image interpretation has been done. When the inspection has been finished but the Image interpretation has not been completed, "Waiting for Image interpretation" is displayed. When both the inspection and Image interpretation have been completed, "End" is displayed) (Section [0058], [0059], [0069]-[0071], and Fig. 4);
and in a case where the character string is not present in the interpretation report for the anatomical structure included in the first medical image, determine the status information for the first medical image to be the second status (e.g. The inspection request list 60 has fields to display, for example, the date when the inspection request is received, patient's name, request department, requesting doctor's name, inspection item and status of the inspection request. In the field of the status, for example, "Waiting for inspection" is displayed when neither the inspection nor the Image interpretation has been done. When the inspection has been finished but the Image interpretation has not been completed, "Waiting for Image interpretation" is displayed. When both the inspection and Image interpretation have been completed, "End" is displayed) (Section [0058], [0059], [0069]-[0071], and Fig. 4).
The motivation to combine Shioe with Mabini/Hayashi is disclosed above with reference to claims, 1, 15, and 16.
Per claim 12, Mabini/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Shioe further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive an input indicating completion of creation of an interpretation report (e.g. When the requesting doctor registers a new inspection request, the status information is set in an initial condition indicating that the inspection and image interpretation have not been done yet, and the importance information is set in an initial condition indicating no importance) (Section [0059], [0071], [0072], [0081], and [0082]);
in a case where an input indicating completion of an interpretation report corresponding to the first medical image is received, determine the status information for the first medical image to be the third status (e.g. When the requesting doctor registers a new inspection request, the status information is set in an initial condition indicating that the inspection and image interpretation have not been done yet, and the importance information is set in an initial condition indicating no importance) (Section [0059], [0071], [0072], [0081], and [0082]).
The motivation to combine Shioe with Mabini/Hayashi is disclosed above with reference to claims, 1, 15, and 16.
Per claim 13, Mabini/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 11 above. Mabini further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to, in a case where it is determined that the status information for the first medical image indicates the third status, execute processing of closing the first medical image without performing processing of providing notification of a confirmation of whether to close the first medical image, as the processing according to the status information (e.g. Prior to closing an exam, in various embodiments, if no images or sequences have been saved to a permanent store memory, a user may be prompted and requested to confirm that none of the images or sequences are to be stored or to store one or more of the images or sequences) (Section [0039]).
Per claim 14, Mabini/Hayashi/Shioe discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above. Shioe further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the status of the first medical image based on an examination date and time at which the first medical image was generated (e.g. When the requesting doctor registers a new inspection request, the status information is set in an initial condition indicating that the inspection and image interpretation have not been done yet, and the importance information is set in an initial condition indicating no importance) (Section [0059] and [0071]).
The motivation to combine Shioe with Mabini/Hayashi is disclosed above with reference to claims, 1, 15, and 16.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mabini/Hayashi/Shioe, as applied to claim 7 above, in further view of US 20220005565 A1 (“Lyman”).
Per claim 9, although Mabini/Hayashi/Shioe disclose determining a status of a medical image, Mabini/Hayashi/Shioe do not specifically disclose:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the status of the first medical image by applying a trained learning model that has been trained to output the status information of the first medical image in response to inputs of the interpretation report for the first medical image and the first medical image using the latest interpretation report, the first medical image, and the status information of the first medical image as learning data.
However Lyman, in analogous art of medical image assessments, discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the status of the first medical image by applying a trained learning model that has been trained to output the status information of the first medical image in response to inputs of the interpretation report for the first medical image and the first medical image using the latest interpretation report, the first medical image, and the status information of the first medical image as learning data (e.g. Step 3204 includes generating first automated assessment data by performing a first inference function on the first medical scan by utilizing a computer vision model trained on a plurality of medical scans. Step 3206 includes generating first human assessment data by performing an extraction function on the first medical report. Step 3208 includes generating first consensus data by performing a consensus function on the first automated assessment data and the first human assessment data, wherein performing the consensus function includes comparing the first automated assessment data to the first human assessment data. Step 3210 includes transmitting, via the network interface, a first retroactive discrepancy notification, wherein the first retroactive discrepancy notification indicates the first medical scan is flagged in response to determining the first consensus data indicates the automated assessment data compares unfavorably to the first human assessment data) (Section [0330]-[0331]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medical image status determination of Mabini/Hayashi/Shioe to include the use of a trained learning model, as taught by Lyman, in order to achieve the predictable result of providing a more accurate and automated way to identify factors for the status determination and reducing errors (See Lyman paragraph [0363] and [0376]).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Publication Number 20070167724 A1 to Gadagkar teaches a system and method that checks if an expected number of medical images were transferred and if not then it prompts the user to confirm. US Publication Number 20160224737 A1 to Okabe and US 20210295983 A1 to Nomura teaches a system and method that uses various medical report progress statuses. US Publication Number 20160247300 A1 to Takata teaches a system and method for viewing medical images. US Publication Number 20200258641 to Nakamura teaches a system and method for viewing medical images and generating interpretation reports. US Publication Number 20180253812 A1 to Iwase teaches a system and method that determines an interpretation status for a medical image and determines a priority level based on the interpretation status. US 20170308365 A1 to Kojima teaches a system and method that updates a medical image inspection progress status. US 20200111558 A1 to Matsumoto teaches a system and method that obtains a status of image interpretation of a medical image and determines whether or not all the images have been interpreted.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P SAX whose telephone number is (571) 272-2935. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-4:30.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/TS/
Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698