Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/07/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Notices to Applicant
This communication is a non-final rejection. Claims 1-16 and 18-21, as filed 05/07/2026, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority is generally acknowledged as shown on the filing receipt with the earliest priority date being 02/21/2023.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 11, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities. Claims 1 and 19 recite “different from the first external processing, on a radiation image” but the underlined article should be “the” because the term was introduced earlier. Claims 1 and 19 also recite “first image processing performed by first external processing apparatus” and “second image processing performed by second external processing apparatus.” Each recitation omits an article before the apparatus. The Examiner interprets these as “first image processing performed by a first external processing apparatus” and “second image processing performed by a second external processing apparatus.” Claim 3 recites a capital “d” in “Determine whether…” which should be lower case. Finally, the “wherein, with the radiation image…” clause in claim 11 lacks a subject and is interpreted as “wherein, with the radiation image being an original image, information of a processing result for the radiation image, or a processed image generated via the first external processing, is received as the processing information.”
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 7, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, claims 2, 7, and 10 recite “the determination,” but the independent claim 1 recites two determinations (i.e., whether to execute a first/second external processing), so it is not determinable which determination is the antecedent. Claims 7, 9, and 12 recite “the transmission destination” but the independent claim 1 recites two transmission destinations (i.e., a transmission destination of the first/second external processing), so it is not determinable which destination is the antecedent.
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 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter 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.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process, machine, and/or article of manufacture which recite:
An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory having instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the apparatus to: (additional element – generally applying the abstract idea with a computer)
execute image processing on a radiation image; (additional element – generally applying the abstract idea with a computer or insignificant extra-solution activity)
determine whether to execute a first external processing on the radiation image after the image processing is executed on the radiation image; (abstract idea – mental process)
transmit the radiation image to a transmission destination of the first external processing in a case where it is determined to execute the first external processing; (abstract idea – certain methods of organizing human activity; to the extent that this is non-abstract, it amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, namely, transmitting data over a network)
receive processing information relating to the first external processing of the radiation image; (additional element – insignificant extra-solution activity, namely, data gathering)
determine whether to execute a second external processing, different from the first external processing, on a radiation image using processing information relating to the first external processing of the radiation image; (abstract idea – mental process)
transmit the radiation image to a transmission destination of the second external processing in a case where it is determined to execute the second external processing; and (abstract idea – certain methods of organizing human activity; to the extent that this is non-abstract, it amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, namely, transmitting data over a network)
receive processing information relating to the second external processing of the radiation image, (additional element – insignificant extra-solution activity, namely, data gathering)
wherein the first external processing is first image processing performed by first external processing apparatus, and wherein the second external processing is second image processing performed by second external processing apparatus, and wherein the first image processing, and the second image processing, are image processing different from each other (additional element – generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use).
Claim 1 is presented as an exemplary claim but the same analysis applies to the other claims 18-20.
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes because determining whether to execute processing steps can practicably be performed by a radiologist thinking about whether to get a second opinion. Further, transmitting the image to a destination is analogous to a radiologist walking to the office of a colleague to deliver the image and ask about a second opinion.
Dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea. For example, claims 2-12 provide additional details of the determination that can also be performed by a radiologist when deciding whether to take the image to a colleague’s office for a second opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components. Claim 21 recites comparing processing loads and choosing a machine with the lower load which a person can do by mentally comparing two workloads.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, performing steps such as determining and transmitting data with various units amounts to invoking computers to perform the abstract idea, see applicant’s specification [0032], see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. For example, executing image processing on the radiation image before the first determination is made is pre-solution activity and receiving processing information amounts to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use such as first and second external processing apparatuses and the radiation detector of claim 18, see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Dependent claims add only subject matter consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. For example, claims 13-16 recite a generic display that functions in its typical way to display the result of the data processing and thus amounts to using computers as tools to implement the abstract idea. Claim 21 adds external processing apparatuses which generally link the abstract idea to a computing environment. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields. For example, transmitting the radiation image to a transmission destination, to the extent that it is not part of the abstract idea, amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
As discussed under Step 2A Prong Two, the dependent claims add only general recitations of using computers as tools to implement the abstract idea. The distribution of work among a plurality of processing apparatuses of claim 21 is well-understood, routine, and conventional as shown by the “Load balancing (computing)” review article cited in the PTO-892 from 03/11/2026. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3, 5-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backhaus (US20140088987A1) in view of Mathur (US20210174941A1).
Regarding claim 1, Backhaus discloses: An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory having instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the apparatus to (“an apparatus such as a computing system with a processor and memory may embody components structured to perform functions of the described implementations,” [0217]):
--execute image processing on a radiation image (“When the IO Management System 102 receives the image, it may process the image with an image server component. This processing may include compressing or converting the image to a different format using a compressor/converter module. This image server may also operate to extract metadata from each image file in a series of radiology scan images,” [0033]; “The images may include representations of body parts generated by imaging modalities such as x-rays, CAT scans, and MRIs,” [0034]);
--determine whether to execute a first external processing on the radiation image after the image processing is executed on the radiation image (“the IO Management System 102 may determine that the image data is to be forwarded to a system user 121 (e.g., a radiologist) at an image review system 106,” [0031]; “the comparator module 216 provides the medical facility ID 111 derived from the DICOM data included in the medical request to a caching module 224,” [0206]; “The workflow module then performs filtering algorithms to determine a doctor to receive the request and returns an associated doctor ID 226 to the caching module,” [0207]);
--transmit the radiation image to a transmission destination of the first external processing in a case where it is determined to execute the first external processing (“After the workflow module assigns the orders and corresponding images to the selected doctors, the image server 132 may transmit the compressed images over the network to the doctor systems 106A-C,” [0205]);
--receive processing information relating to the first external processing of the radiation image (“When the report is received by the system 102, the report flag 820 may be sent to the Image Server 132. The report flag may be transmitted with the report from the client device 106,” [0151]);
--determine whether to execute a second external processing,(“the IO Management System 102 may assign an order from a medical facility 104A to a radiologist at a client device 106A,” [0036]; “If the order is not acted upon in a timely manner by the radiologist, additional radiologists may be assigned and provided the images and order information,” [0149]);
--transmit the radiation image to a transmission destination of the second external processing in a case where it is determined to execute the second external processing (“If the radiologist accepts the order, the IO Management System 102 makes the images associated with the order available to the radiologist for viewing, as indicated by arrows 114 and 107,” [0036]; “The image server 132 and the order server 140 send the images and the orders to the doctor systems 106A-C for review by the doctors,” [0202]); and
--receive processing information relating to the second external processing of the radiation image (“The report may be received at the IO Management System 102 from the client device,” [0172]).
Backhaus does not expressly disclose but Mathur teaches:
--different from the first external processing (“at 236, a position model is called and applied to the input image. Upon reception of the results, at 238 the PTX model is called and applied to the input image,” [0099])
--using processing information relating to the first external processing of the radiation image (“After model execution at 2254, the process 2200 proceeds to 2256 where a decision is made as to whether the model analysis run at 2254 exceeds a probability threshold. If false at 2256, the process 2200 proceeds to 2260 and reports that no AI is available. If true at 2256, a fork instruction creates parallel model branches 2270 and 2272,” [0218])
-- wherein the first external processing is first image processing performed by first external processing apparatus (“In some embodiments in which the algorithm is a third-party algorithm, the workflow execution engine 116 can send the input image to the third-party system with a request to have the third-party system apply the algorithm to the input image and return the results,” [0106]), and
--wherein the second external processing is second image processing performed by second external processing apparatus (“The algorithms can also comprise internal algorithms and third-party algorithms stored at different network accessible file locations,” [0012]; “the third party algorithms 136 can include various image/medical image processing algorithms/models provided by various third party AI developers/providers,” [0090]), and
--wherein the first image processing, and the second image processing, are image processing different from each other (“at 236, a position model is called and applied to the input image. Upon reception of the results, at 238 the PTX model is called and applied to the input image,” [0099]).
A POSITA before the effective filing date would have been motivated to expand Backhaus’s teleradiology workflow to include the sequential third-party image processing models of Mathur because this would improve the process of radiology diagnosis by applying algorithms that “could be used to assist a radiologist to diagnose and treat a disease” (Mathur [0059]).
Regarding claim 2, Backhaus does not expressly disclose but Mathur further teaches:
--determine whether the processing information matches a condition relating to a timing for performing the determination, a type of information corresponding to a target for the determination, and content of processing to be executed on the information corresponding to the target (“After model execution at 2254, the process 2200 proceeds to 2256 where a decision is made as to whether the model analysis run at 2254 exceeds a probability threshold. If false at 2256, the process 2200 proceeds to 2260 and reports that no AI is available. If true at 2256, a fork instruction creates parallel model branches 2270 and 2272,” [0218]) and
--specifies a transmission destination in a case where the condition is matched (“the workflow instructions for a task node corresponding to an algorithm/model to be called/executed can include (e.g., as embedded therein) the algorithm execution instructions for calling and executing the corresponding algorithm, such as the network accessible algorithm file location,” [0095]).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Backhaus does not expressly disclose but Mathur further teaches: determine whether to execute the second external processing when the processing information is obtained (“at 236, a position model is called and applied to the input image. Upon reception of the results, at 238 the PTX model is called and applied to the input image,” [0099]). The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Backhaus further discloses:
--determine whether to execute the first external processing on the radiation image (“When an image is received from a medical facility by the IO Management System 102, it may be passed to the workflow module 804, which can determine which doctor may receive the image for study,” [0145]), and
--transmit the radiation image to a transmission destination of the first external processing in a case where it is determined to execute the first external processing (“After the workflow module assigns the orders and corresponding images to the selected doctors, the image server 132 may transmit the compressed images over the network to the doctor systems 106A-C,” [0205]).
Regarding claim 6, Backhaus further discloses: determine whether to execute the first external processing on the radiation image when the radiation image is obtained or when image processing is executed on the radiation image (“When an image is received from a medical facility by the IO Management System 102, it may be passed to the workflow module 804, which can determine which doctor may receive the image for study,” [0145]).
Regarding claim 7, Backhaus does not expressly disclose but Mathur further teaches:
--determine whether or not a setting for executing external processing on the radiation image is set (“Only activated workflows will be available for execution by the workflow execution engine 116,” [0153]),
--in a case where a setting for executing the external processing is set, obtains a condition for the determination set for executing transmission processing for transmitting the radiation image to an external processing apparatus, and specifies the transmission destination in a case where the condition for the determination is matched (“Information defining workflow execution conditions can further be associated with the workflow in the workflow and task registry data 122 and employed by the orchestration conductor component 112 and/or the workflow execution engine 116 to control execution/application of the workflow accordingly,” [0156]; [0218]; [0095]),
--transmit the radiation image to the specified transmission destination (“in which the algorithm is a third-party algorithm, the workflow execution engine 116 can send the input image to the third-party system with a request to have the third-party system apply the algorithm to the input image and return the results,” [0106]), and
--does not transmit the radiation image in a case where the transmission destination is not set (“If false at 2256, the process 2200 proceeds to 2260 and reports that no AI is available,” [0218]).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Backhaus does not expressly disclose but Mathur further teaches:
--determine whether or not there is a setting for a transmission destination for executing the second external processing in a case where a determination using the processing information determines to execute the second external processing (“If true at 2256, a fork instruction creates parallel model branches 2270 and 2272,” [0218]; “the workflow instructions for a task node corresponding to an algorithm/model to be called/executed can include (e.g., as embedded therein) the algorithm execution instructions for calling and executing the corresponding algorithm, such as the network accessible algorithm file location,” [0095]),
--transmit the radiation image to a transmission destination of the second external processing in a case where the transmission destination is set (“in which the algorithm is a third-party algorithm, the workflow execution engine 116 can send the input image to the third-party system with a request to have the third-party system apply the algorithm to the input image and return the results,” [0106]), and
--does not transmit the radiation image in a case where the transmission destination is not set (“If false at 2256, the process 2200 proceeds to 2260 and reports that no AI is available,” [0218]).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Backhaus further discloses: transmit a still image or video to the transmission destination as the radiation image (“The image server 132 may be part of a PACS, which digitally stores, transmits, and displays medical images…When received, a compressor (not shown) may compress the images using a variety of compression algorithms to compress the images, such as JPEG, JPEGLS, JPEG2000, PNG, GIF, XBM, BMP, and TIFF,” [0203]).
Regarding claim 10, Backhaus does not expressly disclose but Mathur further teaches:
--set a condition for performing the determination (“The application control component 552 can provide for receiving user input defining one or more conditions that control execution/application of a workflow by the workflow execution component 116,” [0156]),
--set at least one of when imaging for the radiation image is performed, when the processing information is received, and when image processing is executed on the radiation image as timing for performing the determination (“Upon reception of the results, at 238 the PTX model is called and applied to the input image,” [0099]),
--set at least one of the radiation image and the processing information as a type of information corresponding to a target for the determination (“The workflows can also be configured to evaluate the output of a task and use it as input for another task,” [0058]), and
--set at least one of a result of rejection determination, a result of anomaly detection, a result of emphasis processing, and a result of foreign substance detection as content of processing executed on information corresponding to the target for the determination (“An algorithm management interface can be provided that enables setting diagnostic thresholds that define whether or not a given medical condition (e.g., pneumothorax condition (PTX)) is implicated based on the probability determined by the selected model algorithms during workflow processing,” [0067]).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Backhaus does not expressly disclose but Mathur further teaches: receive the processing information, wherein, with the radiation image being an original image is received, as the processing information, information of a processing result for the radiation image or a processed image generated via the first external processing (“With these embodiments, the third-party system can apply/execute the algorithm and provide the results back to the workflow execution engine 116,” [0106]; “the image-based inference output can include a segmentation mask, a reconstructed image, an adapted image, an annotated image, a classification, a value, or the like,” [0072]).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Backhaus further discloses: associate together the processing information, the radiation image, and the transmission destination, and specify the radiation image associated with the processing information and the transmission destination (“the report flag may be stored with the images in the folder,” [0151]; “a set of folders or file locations 814 are each associated with a specific doctor to receive and hold the images,” [0147]).
Claims 18-20 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected with the same reasoning. The Examiner further notes that Backhaus discloses a radiation detector in [0026] and a computer readable storage medium in [0011].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backhaus in view of Mathur and Mansi (US20180366225A1).
Regarding claim 4, Backhaus does not expressly disclose but Mansi teaches: wherein the first external processing executed on the radiation image using an external processing apparatus which is the transmission destination is rejection determination, and wherein the second external processing includes at least one of anomaly detection, and emphasis processing (“a set of instances (e.g., images, series, etc.) are evaluated to determine if an artifact is present, wherein the set of instances is excluded from further steps in the method if an artifact is found,” [0083]; “Evaluating data for exclusion criteria is preferably performed at the remote computing system,” [0081]; “temporal analysis, anomaly detection,” [0073]).
A POSITA before the effective filing date would have been motivated to expand Backhaus and Mathur’s teleradiology workflow to include the exclusion criteria evaluation of Mansi because this would improve the processing efficiency by excluding irrelevant image sets before further analysis to “save time and/or resources” (Mansi [0081]).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backhaus in view of Mathur and Sparandara (US20120131507A1).
Regarding claim 13, Backhaus discloses: display(“image data may be processed by the image display server 123 and visually presented to the user 121 as one or more images at the display device 125,” [0032]; “In either case, the system may monitor the status of the order associated with the image and provide feedback to the ordering medical facility regarding the status of the order,” [0149]).
Backhaus does not expressly disclose but Sparandara teaches: in a first region of a display, a thumbnail image of the radiation image, a first thumbnail image indicating processing information relating to the first external processing, and a second thumbnail image (“The history view in the viewspace 120 presents thumbnails of radiology images, lab results and other documents in a large pane in the middle of the screen, for example,” [0046]; “In certain examples, an indication can be given of, for example, normal results, abnormal results, and/or critical results. For example, the indication can be graphical, such as an icon,” [0035]).
A POSITA before the effective filing date would have been motivated to expand Backhaus and Mathur’s teleradiology workflow to include the thumbnails and result icons of Sparandara because this would improve usability by providing “the central location for doctors to quickly scan patient information and select documents to view in higher resolution” (Sparandara [0046]).
Regarding claim 15, Backhaus does not expressly disclose but Sparandara further teaches: display, on the first thumbnail image, an icon for identifying the thumbnail image for the radiation image and the first thumbnail image indicating processing information relating to the first external processing (“Other glanceable visual indicators, such as a strip of color on the document thumbnail, help physicians to distinguish whether the document is one of three content types: radiology image, lab report, or general document, for example,” [0067]). The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 13.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backhaus in view of Mathur, Sparandara, and Daw (US20030095147A1).
Regarding claim 14, Backhaus discloses: in a case where processing information relating to the second external processing is received (“The report may be received at the IO Management System 102 from the client device,” [0172]).
Backhaus does not expressly disclose but Daw teaches: change a display form of the second thumbnail image to a display form of the first thumbnail image (“On the thumbnail images, the analysis status indicators are limited to the following states,” [0062]; “While the classification is taking place, an hourglass is shown, as previously explained herein, indicating that the classification or thresholding is being conducted for that particular slice. After the analysis has been successfully completed, and if there are pixels included in the slice which have a similar tissue type, then the appropriate analysis indicator will be shown in the upper left hand corner of the image,” [0076]).
A POSITA before the effective filing date would have been motivated to expand the teleradiology workflows of Backhaus, Mathur, and Sparandara to include the thumbnail analysis status indicators of Daw because flagging images whose exams are still in progress would “reduce the likelihood of errors resulting from premature interpretation of the images” (Daw [0057]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backhaus in view of Mathur, Sparandara, and Sorenson (US20180137244A1).
Regarding claim 16, Backhaus does not expressly disclose but Sorenson teaches: display an external processing apparatus that has executed external processing and processing content of the processing information by changing a display form of the icon (“Flagging can include displaying the actual finding(s), or derived summary indication utilizing a combination of findings, found by the engine/e-suite, the engine/e-suite name, a simple mark representing that the study was processed by image processing server 110, marking that the study was normal/abnormal, a series of macro level indication choices (e.g., red, yellow, green, or orange) depicting the risk of the findings, marking with severity (e.g., mild, moderate, or severe) or icons denoting a finding,” [0066]).
A POSITA before the effective filing date would have been motivated to expand the teleradiology workflows of Backhaus, Mathur, and Sparandara to include the flagging of Sorenson because this would improve image interpretation by presenting findings so that they “can be used in the process of primary image interpretation, and any of these findings can be opened or further interrogated in terms of the underlying assumptions for adjustment or the quality of the image data or clinical data can be assessed for appropriateness and possible exchange or editing” (Sorenson [0067]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backhaus in view of Mathur and Ikeda (US20200257994A1).
Regarding claim 21, Backhaus does not expressly disclose but Ikeda teaches:
--wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: compare processing loads of a plurality of external processing apparatuses, and transmit the radiation image to an external processing apparatus with the lower processing load (“the delay handler 122 selects the inference processing device having a smallest processing load currently, that is, the inference processing device 300-5 in this example,” [0142]; “the delay handler 122 determines the camera image G11 read from the SSD 107 of the system controller 120 and the first intermediate result RI11 read from the memory M11 as inputs to the inference processing device 300-5 being the delay optimizing device,” [0145]),
--in a case where there are the plurality of external processing apparatuses capable of processing the second external processing (“The first group and the second group have the same configuration and can perform the same processing,” [0036).
A POSITA before the effective filing date would have been motivated to expand Backhaus and Mathur’s teleradiology workflow to include the load balancing of Ikeda because this would improve efficiency by “appropriately distribut[ing] processing load and efficiently perform[ing] inference processing” (Ikeda [0008]).
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered and are discussed below.
The objections of claims 1-16 and 18-21 pertaining to the term “the first external processing” are withdrawn in light of claim amendments.
Regarding the subject matter ineligibility rejections, Applicant argues that the claimed invention is not directed to a mental process or certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One) because the claims recite “processor-executed image processing operations and the use of processing information to control subsequent processing and transmission”. Remarks page 12. This is not persuasive. Prong One asks whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The recitation of the image processing steps being executed by a generic computer does not remove these determinations from being abstract. A generic computer performing an evaluation that can otherwise be practicably performed in the human mind amounts to an abstract idea being implemented with a computer. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). Additionally, the determinations control the image transmissions, not the image processing steps. These determinations are part of the abstract idea, and the transmission steps are treated as additional elements as described above.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention integrates any abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two) because the claims recite “a specific, feedback-based processing mechanism that governs subsequent operations of the system, rather than merely performing a determination or transmitting data using a computer. Additionally, the claim features recite a particular way of coordinating processing across multiple external processing apparatuses.” Remarks pages 13-14. This is not persuasive. Applicant points to [0003]-[0004] of the specification for support of a technical improvement, namely reducing the operation load of the operator and reducing a mistaken determination or transmission operation. An improvement to the radiology workflow that reduces errors and reduces the load of an operator is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. MPEP 2106.05(a). Instead, these results flow from using the abstract ideas such as determinations to improve the radiologist workflows. The claims recite no change to the processor, memory, network, radiation detector, or processing apparatus that goes beyond each of these devices performing its ordinary function. The Step 2B arguments on page 14 are unpersuasive for the same reasons.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant argues that Backhaus “merely relates to assigning a radiologist for interpretation of the radiation image and does not involve any processing of the radiation image itself.” Remarks page 15. This is not persuasive because Backhaus’s IO Management System compresses or converts the image and extracts metadata in [0033]. The other arguments are moot in view of the new references applied above.
Conclusion
The following reference is considered pertinent but was not relied upon for any rejection. Kottler (US20240038344A1) teaches an orchestrator engine where “a determination is made (at block 2606) whether the medical image and the patient data should be forwarded to a second AI program” in [0057].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BLANCHETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-2299. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7:30AM - 6:00PM, EST.
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, Shahid Merchant, can be reached on (571) 270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA B BLANCHETTE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
