DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant filed a response dated 9/1/2026 in which claims 1 and 10-11 have been amended. Thus, the claims 1-13 are pending in the application.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea to processing medical information without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1 and 10-11.
Claim 1 is directed to a device, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 describes a memory storing images that have been previously processed, each associated therewith information on the processing that was performed on each image and information on each image; and a processor configured to: receive, from a medical imaging device, a medical image including metadata; determine, upon receiving the medical image, processing to be executed based on the information on the processing stored in the memory by using information on the medical image, wherein determining the processing includes automatically selecting the processing when a predetermined number of past executions corresponding to the information on the medical image are stored in the memory, thereby automatically controlling execution of image processing for subsequently received medical images having corresponding metadata; in case that the processing is not determined from stored information in the memory, await a request from a user to determine the processing from the request; execute the determined processing on the medical image to generate a processed medical image, wherein the determined processing includes (i) extracting one or more parameters from the metadata of the medical image, (ii) selecting, based on the extracted parameters, an image processing algorithm, and (iii) applying the selected image processing algorithm to image data of the medical image to generate the processed medical image as processed image data having a display form different that of the medical image before application of the selected image processing algorithm, and wherein selecting the image processing algorithm includes inputting the extracted one or more parameters to a trained machine learning model that outputs the image processing algorithm to the applied; output the processed medical image to an external display, and store the processed medical image with the metadata and the information on the executed processing in the memory; and cause the external display to display the processed medical image together with information identifying the selected image processing algorithm automatically applied to the medical image. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe the abstract idea to processing medical information. Furthermore, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of a memory, a processor, a medical image device, automatically feature, algorithm, and an external display do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of a memory, a processor, a medical image device, automatically feature, algorithm, and an external display result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a memory, a processor, a medical image device, automatically feature, algorithm, and an external display are recited at a high level of generality, and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing device. The presence of a generic computing device does nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPRP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of a memory, a processor, a medical image device, automatically feature, algorithm, and an external display are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. The additional element of a medical imaging device is recited at a high level of generality in that it amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering step) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a memory, a processor, a medical image device, automatically feature, algorithm, and an external display are recited at a high level of generality in that it result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional element of a medical imaging device is recited at a high level of generality in that it amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering step) and does not amount to add significantly more. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to other independent claims 10-11, and hence the claims 10-11 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 12-13 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract in nature for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-9 and 12-13 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-13 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed dated 9/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that the claimed subject matter automatically selects an image processing algorithm based on parameters extracted from metadata of a medical image and applies the selected image processing algorithm to the image data itself. Applicant states that the selected image processing algorithm transforms the medical image data to generate processed image data having a display form different from that of the medical image before application of the selected image processing algorithm.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that selecting image processing algorithm to generate a processed image data having a display form different from that of the medical image before processing is not a technical improvement that transform an abstract idea into a practical application. Displaying data in one form or another is still abstract in nature as there is no technical improvement as a result of processing a medical image with the use of a processing algorithm. This merely amounts to applying the abstract idea with the use of additional element (i.e., an algorithm) and the claim remains directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant also states that the automatically selected processing is not merely identified or recommended as information. Rather, the automatically selected image processing algorithm is actually applied to the image data to generate different processed image data, and the resulting processed medical image is displayed together with identification of the algorithm that was automatically applied.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that automatically selecting image processing algorithm to generate a processed image data having a display form different from that of the medical image before processing is not a technical improvement that transform an abstract idea into a practical application. Displaying data in one form or another is still abstract in nature as there is no technical improvement as a result of automatically processing a medical image with the use of a processing algorithm. This merely amounts to applying the abstract idea with the use of additional elements (i.e., an algorithm and automatically feature that makes use of a computing device) and the claim remains directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant states that the alleged abstract idea is meaningfully applied to control the actual processing of medical image data by a selected image processing algorithm to generate a transformed medical image for display. These features therefore impose meaningful limits on any alleged abstract idea and tie the claimed operations to a concrete medical image processing implementation, rather than merely using a computer as a tool to perform information processing. Applicant also states that the claimed subject matter therefore does not merely automate the abstract processing of medical information using generic computer components. Rather, the claimed arrangement uses accumulated processing information to automatically control which image processing algorithm is applied to subsequently received medical image data and actually applies that algorithm to transform the medical image data into processed image data for display.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claim states selecting an image processing algorithm based on the parameters from the metadata of the medical image but does not describe how these parameters are critical in providing a technical improvement. Displaying image data in a different form is not a technical improvement. If there is an improvement, it is to the abstract idea of displaying data which is not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter.
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 RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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 at 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 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
