DETAILED ACTION
Notices to Applicant
This communication is a final rejection. Claims 1-16 and 18-21, as filed 11/26/2025, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority is generally acknowledged as shown in the filing receipt with the earliest 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 1-16 and 18-21 are objected to because of the following informalities. The claims use the terms “a first external process” and “the first external processing”. If these referred to different elements, the claims would be rejected as indefinite for lacking antecedent basis. Instead, the Examiner views this as a typographical mistake and interprets them as referring to the same element. That is, “the first external processing” is interpreted as “the first external process”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) does/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:
1. 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: (apply the abstract idea using computers as tools)
--determine whether to execute a second external processing, different from a first external process, on a radiation image using processing information relating to the first external processing of the radiation image (abstract idea – mental process); and
--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 (abstract idea – certain methods of organizing human activity).
Claim 1 is presented as an exemplary claim but the same analysis applies to the other independent claims. The Examiner notes that the radiation detector of claim 18 is insignificant extra-solution activity that generally links the abstract idea to a technical field.
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes because determining whether to execute external processing on a radiation image using processing information 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 certain methods of organizing human activity because it amounts to the radiologist walking to the office of his colleague to deliver the physical image and ask about the second opinion. No particular technology for implementing the transmission is recites such that it goes beyond the human process.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims. For example, claims 2-12 recite additional details of the determination that could be performed mentally and details about when to transmit the image that are analogous to the radiologist walking to his colleague’s office but for recitation of generic computer components.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, performing steps such as determining and transmitting data with the various units amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see applicant’s specification [0032], see MPEP 2106.05(f))
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use such as the radiation detector of claim 18, see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. For example, Claims 13-16 recite a generic display that functions in its typical way, namely, displaying the result of the data processing, and thus amounts to using computers as tools to implement the abstract idea(s). Claim 21 applies the abstract idea of load balancing (i.e., determining the workload of two servers and choosing the lower one) with generic computers. 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 data (assuming arguendo 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).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. With respect to claim 21 in particular, the recitation of load balancing in a computing context is well-understood, routine, and conventional as demonstrated by the attached review article (“Load balancing (computing); 13 January 2021; Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Load_balancing_(computing)&oldid=1000130368). 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 1-12 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backhaus (US20140088987A1) in view of Mansi (US20180366225A1).
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, cause the apparatus to: (image processing apparatus 111, terminal 115, image review system 106 in FIG. 1)
--determine (“an image order (IO) management system 102” in FIG. 1; “the IO Management System 102 may assign an order from a medical facility 104A to a radiologist at a client device 106A,” [0036]; “a workflow component may be configured to assign the orders and the plurality of digital radiology images to a qualified member of a pool of remote radiologists for review,” [0009]) whether to execute a second external processing,(Review of image by external radiologist is the first external processing and that radiologist’s report flag 820, e.g., [0151], is the processing information. Based on the flag (or lack of flag) “additional radiologists may be assigned” in [0149] which amounts to a second external processing. Further, “old images may be transmitted with information that indicates they have been read” in [0152] which demonstrates that the report flag is used to determine how to handle and transmit certain images for external processing/review.) and
--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]).
Backhaus does not expressly disclose but Mansi teaches that the second external processing is different from the first external process (“As shown in FIG. 2, method 200 for computer-aided triage includes determining a parameter associated with a data packet S220, determining a treatment option based on the parameter S230, and transmitting information to a device associated with a second point of care S250,” [0013]). Mansi further teaches that the parameter is determined by analyzing the radiation image for anatomical features and comparing the parameter with a threshold in FIG. 2. FIG. 4 further shows an example where images are analyzed to detect exclusion criteria and segment large vessels leading to either sending a notification (i.e., “special case detected”) or not sending a notification.
Thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date to expand the teleradiology system of Backhaus to include the triaging workflow of Mansi because it would “create an improved and useful system and method for decreasing the time it takes to determine and initiate treatment for a patient presenting with a critical condition” (Mansi [0004])
Regarding claim 2, Backhaus discloses: determine whether the processing information matches a condition relating to a timing (“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]) for performing the determination (“The report flag may contain information about the transaction, such as the time the report was completed,” [0153]), a type of information corresponding to a target for the determination (“the data extracted from the report flag 820 may indicate whether a report was a preliminary or final study, what time the order was requested or processed, whether the report was submitted during a weekday or the weekend, whether the doctor was a subspecialist, whether the report as a result of a request for a second opinion or a consultation, and a doctor identifier for determining the appropriate compensation for that doctor,” [0163]), and content of processing to be executed on the information corresponding to the target and specifies a transmission destination in a case where the condition is matched (“the flag 820 may indicate that the images are old images related to a previous report. The images may be sent along with new images to a radiologist; however, the old images may be identified as older images using the report flag. The flag may be used to cause the image server to transmit the old images in way that indicates they are old,” [0152]).
Regarding claim 3, Backhaus discloses: determine whether to execute the second external processing when the processing information is obtained (“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,” [0152]).
Regarding claim 4, Backhaus discloses a preliminary review and validation step (e.g., 238 in FIG. 11 and step 740 in FIG. 7). Backhaus does not expressly disclose but Mansi further 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 where the second external processing includes at least one of anomaly detection and emphasis processing (anomaly detection as a second external processing in FIGs. 2 and 4; “S220 preferably includes identifying (e.g., locate, isolate, measure, quantify, etc.) an anatomical feature S222 within the data packet,” [0092]; image analysis to detect exclusion criteria in FIG. 4).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 5.
Regarding claim 5, Backhaus 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 (“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]).
Regarding claim 6, Backhaus 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 discloses:
-- determine whether or not a setting for executing external processing on the radiation image is set ([0145]),
--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 (“For example, the workflow module 804 would attempt to assign orders to as many radiologists as possible while still honoring licensing and credentialing limitations, and facility preferences”),
-- transmit the radiation image to the specified transmission destination, and does not transmit the radiation image in a case where the transmission destination is not set (not transmitting if no qualified member is found in [0009]; [0151] also shows a workflow where images are prevented from being sent when a destination if deemed inappropriate).
Regarding claim 8, Backhaus discloses: 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 ([0145]),
--transmit the radiation image to a transmission destination of the second external processing in a case where the transmission destination is set (“For example, the workflow module 804 would attempt to assign orders to as many radiologists as possible while still honoring licensing and credentialing limitations, and facility preferences”), and does not transmit the radiation image in a case where the transmission destination is not set (not transmitting if no qualified member is found in [0009]; [0151] also shows a workflow where images are prevented from being sent when a destination if deemed inappropriate).
Regarding claim 9, Backhaus discloses: transmit a still image or video to the transmission destination as the radiation image (“Consistent with the appropriate image format, the images produced by the image data source may include metadata. This metadata may be generated by the imaging device 111 and/or by the technician input collected by the terminal 115. Further, the series of images may be obtained directly by the imaging device 111 in the facility shown in FIG. 1, or may be transferred in whole or in part from another image capturing device connected to the imaging device modality 111 or the facility's local network,” [0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Backhaus discloses:
--set a condition for performing the determination (“the Production Module may include a workflow module 804, and the Data Module 152 may include a database 806 with billing rules 808 and compensation rules 810,” [0143]),
--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 (“The report flag may contain information about the transaction, such as the time the report was completed, the doctor that completed it, the facility that requested it, the type of image read, the number of images, and the time the image was submitted to the doctor,” [0153]),
--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 data may include the order type, which may be an identifier signifying whether the order associated with the report was a preliminary study or a final study, the doctor identifier for the doctor completing the study, the time of day the order and the report were transmitted and received, the number of images associated with the report, the medical facility sending the images, and the region of the patient's body depicted in the image,” [0156]), 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 (the report flag showing certain images as “older” in [0152] is interpreted as a type of rejection determination, i.e., an image becoming “older” signifies a kind of rejection).
Regarding claim 11, Backhaus discloses: receive the processing information, wherein, with the radiation image being an original image, the receiving unit receives, as the processing information, information of a processing result for the radiation image or a processed image generated via the first external processing (“The report flag 820 may also be used to indicate that a transaction has been completed so that the billing module 800 and the compensation module 802 may calculate billing and compensation,” [0153]).
Regarding claim 12, Backhaus 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 associated with the images to which it relates using DICOM information embedded in the image and information in the transmitted report, such as the facility that sent the image, and the patient name, or patient ID. The IO Management System 102 may associate the report flag with the images. The report flag may associated with the images in a way that indicates the images have been analyzed by a doctor,” [0151]).
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected with the same reasoning. The examiner further notes that the medical imaging device 111 in FIG. 1 is a radiation detector.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected with the same reasoning.
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected with the same reasoning. The Examiner notes that Backhaus further discloses “a computer program product may include instructions that cause a processor to perform operations comprising the steps of method 300” in [0082].
Regarding claim 21, Backhaus discloses: 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, in a case where there are the plurality of external processing apparatuses capable of processing the second external processing (“a workflow component may be configured to assign the orders and the plurality of digital radiology images to a qualified member of a pool of remote radiologists for review,” [0009]; “a forecasting component configured to estimate levels of adequate radiologist staffing for future radiology reads… enhanced features of the image processing component to convert radiology image data into a variety of digital image formats and/or transmit image data to defined digital locations” [0010]; forecasting workload in [0214]-[0215]).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backhaus (US20140088987A1) in view of Mansi (US20180366225A1) and Sparandara (US20120131507A1).
Regarding claim 13, Backhaus discloses a 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”). Backhaus further discloses displaying status information about a review request (“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]). Mansi discloses a client application 130 in FIG. 1; notification interface with in FIG. 5A; Thumbnail in FIG. 5B.
Backhaus and Mansi do not expressly disclose, but Sparandara teaches: display, 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 indicating a state of the radiation image after being transmitted to a transmission destination of the second external processing (“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. This is the central location for doctors to quickly scan patient information and select documents to view in higher resolution, for example,” [0046]; icons indicating information about a result in [0035]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand Backhaus’s teleradiology system that includes feedback to the ordering medical facility regarding status and Mansi’s triaging workflows to include the thumbnails and status icons of Sparandara because these would allow doctors to quickly scan patient information and before drilling into particular images (Sparandara [0046]).
Regarding claim 14, Backhaus further discloses change a display form of the second thumbnail image to a display form of the first thumbnail image in a case where processing information relating to the second external processing is received (“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]).
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]; “document thumbnails that have been selected are highlighted to visually indicate that they have been added to the document workspace,” [0068]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand Backhaus’s teleradiology system that includes feedback to the ordering medical facility regarding status and Mansi’s triaging workflows to include the thumbnails and status icons of Sparandara that vary by color because these “glanceable visual indicators” would allow doctors to quickly scan large amounts of patient information (Sparandara [0049]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 16, Backhaus does not expressly disclose but Sparandara further 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 (“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]; “document thumbnails that have been selected are highlighted to visually indicate that they have been added to the document workspace,” [0068]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand Backhaus’s teleradiology system that includes feedback to the ordering medical facility regarding status and Mansi’s triaging workflows to include the processing display of Sparandara that vary by color because these “glanceable visual indicators” would allow doctors to quickly scan large amounts of patient information (Sparandara [0049]-[0050]).
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered and are discussed below.
The 112(f) interpretation and 112(b) rejections 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 (Step 2A Prong One) because it uses a processor and memory. Remarks pages 11-12. This is not persuasive because the presence of generic computing hardware does not negate the recitation of an abstract idea. The hardware is analyzed in Prong Two and Step 2B.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is tied to and improves a specific machine, i.e., “a processor within a radiographic imaging system.” Remarks page 12. This is not persuasive. First, claim 1 does not include a radiographic imaging system and instead merely claims an “information processing apparatus” with generic computing components that amounts to a general purpose computer. Even if the claims were amended to include a radiographic imagine system, nothing about that system would change how the general purpose computer performs abstract ideas. “It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine.” Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Regarding the technical improvement, the Examiner finds no disclose of technical improvements to computer functioning. The problem that the instant invention seeks to solve, i.e., human error when making determinations or transmissions in [0003], is an improvement to the abstract idea not a technical functioning of the computer.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention amounts to significantly more than any abstract idea (Step 2B) because of load balancing. Remarks page 12. This is not persuasive because comparing load values and selecting the lower one is itself a mental process and abstract idea. Routing to the least-loaded server is also a well-known, routine, and conventional computer technique that does not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection including the Mansi reference.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action (See MPEP 706.07(a)). Accordingly, 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 extension fee 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 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