Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to applicant arguments filled on 02/19/2026 for application 18/431484.
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 have been amended.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
Detailed Action
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-11 are drawn to a method and system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1, 10, and 11 recite generate a plurality of examination report in association with at least one of disease type of the subject’s eye and examination conditions; transfer process on the plurality of examination reports; and generating the plurality of examination reports before receiving the transfer instructions.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity by identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including a computer storage medium; a processor; and a memory (claim 10), which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims recite the additional element of sequentially display a plurality of examination, which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that do not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed display limitation is incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
Paragraph 5, where “he program includes instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: sequentially display a plurality of examination results on a screen, the plurality of examination results being examination results on a subject's eye obtained by an eye examination device; generate a plurality of converted examination results by converting the plurality of examination results in a predetermined format; and collectively perform a transfer process on the plurality of converted examination results each corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of examination results upon receiving a transfer operation. When generating the plurality of converted examination results, the instructions further cause the at least one processor to generate at least one of the plurality of converted examination results before receiving the transfer operation.”
Paragraph 54-55, where “The PC 20 includes at least a processor 21 (a processing device) and a memory 22. In this embodiment, the following information is stored on the memory 22 in advance. A control program for the OCT device 10, an image processing program for processing the OCT data, an ophthalmological information processing program for creating and transmitting the examination report, fixed value data, and the like. Various programs are read and executed by the processor 21. Furthermore, the memory 22 may store the examination results obtained via the OCT device 10. For example, the examination results of the subject's eye obtained from past examinations may be stored on the memory 22 in advance.
[0055] An operation unit 23 such as a mouse and a keyboard may be connected to the PC 20. Various operations are input via the operation unit 23.”
The claims recite the additional element of sequential displaying results, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-9 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-11 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2022/0005584 A1) in view of Mabotuwana et al. (US 2025/0029736 A1).
In claim 1, a non-transitory, computer readable storage medium storing an ophthalmology information processing program for at least one processor of an ophthalmology computer, the program comprising instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
Takahashi teaches:
sequentially display a plurality of examination results on a screen, the plurality of examination results being examination results on a subject's eye obtained by an eye examination device (Fig. 3 and Para. 55 and 128 wherein sequential images are displayed of an eye);
generate a plurality of examination reports in association with at least one of disease type of the subject’s eye and examination conditions by converting the plurality of examination results in a predetermined format (Para. 30 and 136 wherein images can be converted) ; and
collectively perform a transfer process on the plurality of examination reports each corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of examination results upon receiving a transfer instruction input by an examiner through an interface (Para. 30 wherein “the automatic transfer execution unit 106 checks the imaging data of which imaging device the automatic transfer information is targeted for, converts, into a data format specified by the automatic transfer information, that of the corresponding imaging data, and transfers the converted data to the transfer data storage system”) , wherein
Takahashi does not explicitly teach however Mabotuwana teaches:
when generating the plurality of examination reports, the instruction further cause the at least one processor to generate at least one of the plurality of examination reports before receiving the transfer operation (Para. 27, 33 and 37 wherein reports can be converted to compatible image formats or can be reduced in resolution before transferring them)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to combine the apparatus includes a storage unit configured to store information individually set for each of a plurality of different types of imaging as transmission settings for a plurality of pieces of imaging data obtained by the plurality of different types of imaging, and a transmission unit configured to transmit imaging data on a test subject based on the stored information as taught in Takahashi with the conversion of reports to different formats before transmitting as taught in Mabotuwana. The well-known elements described are merely a combination of old elements, and in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Takahashi teaches the storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to generate the at least one of the plurality of examination reports in a background while the plurality of examinations results are being sequentially displayed on the screen (Para. 30 and 56).
As per claim 3, Takahashi teaches the storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to edit, based on an editing operation, a content of the examination report corresponding to the examination result that is currently displayed on the screen (Para. 47 wherein information can be added and edited in the report screen).
As per claim 4, Takahashi teaches the storage medium according to claim 1, wherein
the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
switch from the examination result that is currently displayed on the screen to another examination result upon receiving a switching operation (Fig. 3 and 4 wherein different screens can be selected)); and
generate the examination report corresponding to the previous examination report that was displayed immediately before the current examination result is displayed based on the switching operation (Fig. 3 and 4).
As per claim 5, Takahashi teaches the storage medium according to claim 1, wherein when generating the plurality of examinations reports, the instructions further cause the at least one processor to create at least one examination report on the subject's eye based on the plurality of examination results and a template that was prepared in advance (Para. 34).
As per claim 6, Takahashi teaches the storage medium according to claim 1, wherein
the instructions further cause the at least one processor to selectively perform, when transferring the plurality of examination reports:
a first transfer step by (i) sequentially displaying the plurality of examination results, (ii) requesting for the transfer instruction, and (iii) performing the transfer process on the examination result for which the transfer instruction is received (Para. 34-35); and
a second transfer step by performing the transfer process on the plurality of examination results without requesting for the transfer instruction (para. 34-35).
As per claim 7, Takahashi teaches the storage medium according to claim 6, wherein
the instructions further cause the at least one processor to, at the second transfer step, perform the transfer process on the plurality of examination results before displaying the plurality of examination results (Para. 34-35).
As per claim 8, Takahashi teaches the storage medium according to claim 6, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
when generating the plurality of examination reports, create at least one report on the subject's eye based on the plurality of examination results and at least one of various types of templates that were prepared in advance, each of the templates being in association with at least one of a disease type and examination conditions for the eye examination device (Fig. 3-4 and Para. 113);
acquire the plurality of examination results and information on either the disease type of the subject's eye and the examination conditions (Para. 34-35); and
at the second transfer step, selectively transfer, based on the acquired information, the at least one examination report created based on the at least one of the various types of the templates (Para. 34-35).
As per claim 9, Takahashi teaches the storage medium according to claim 8, wherein
the information includes at least one of first information on whether a binocular disease exists and second information on whether the plurality of examination results on both left and right eyes exist (Para. 65 and 113), and
the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
when generating the plurality of examination reports, create a binocular report based on the examination result on both eyes and a monocular report based on the examination result on one eye (Para. 113 wherein a report of an eye disease is taught); and
selectively transfer the binocular report and the monocular report based on the first information or the second information (Para. 28, 30, and 34).
Claims 10-11 recite substantially similar limitations as seen in claims 1 and hence are rejected for similar rationale as noted above.
Response to Arguments.
Applicant arguments with respect to the art rejection are moot in view of new grounds of rejections necessitated by claim amendments.
The Applicant argues the 101 rejection. The Applicant states that the claims are directed to a specific technological implementation and are not directed to an abstract idea. Rather, the claims recite concrete limitations that define a particular technical solution to a technical problem and constitute an improvement to computer technology and/or technical field, thereby integrating any alleged abstract concept into a practical application. The claims as amended define a particular technical solution to the technical problem of processing delay in clinical workflows.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Converting data/reports before transmitting them is not a technical solution. It is well known that reports can be converted before transmitting/transfering them. This limitation does not offer any technical improvements upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technical process.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAROUN P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MAROUN P. KANAAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/MAROUN P KANAAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights