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 2/27/2026 in which claims 1 and 10-11 have been amended and new claims 12-13 are pending in the application. Thus, the claims 1-13 are pending in the application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/27/2026 has been entered.
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 the medical image, 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. 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 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 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that under Step 2A, Prong One, the amended claims are directed to a specific technological solution for automatically controlling execution of image processing algorithms in a medical image processing device. The claimed subject matter is rooted in a particular image processing environment and recites concrete operations performed on medical image data, including metadata parameter extraction, machine learning model based algorithm selection, and application of a selected image processing algorithm to image data.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that under Step 2A, Prong One, the limitations are considered in the absence of additional elements to determine if the claim recites an abstract idea. The additional elements are then considered to determine if the additional elements restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The additional elements are then further considered in more detail under Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B to determine if the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to add significantly more. In this case, it was determined that the claim recites an abstract idea of processing medical information and the additional elements do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant states that the features define a specific technological implementation for selecting and executing image processing algorithms on medical image data, not a mere instructions to apply an abstract idea using generic computer components.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the technological implementation for selecting and executing image processing algorithms does not result in any technical improvement or provide a technical solution to a technical problem. The implementation is nothing more than to utilize technology as a tool to implement the abstract idea. This is not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2B, Applicant states that the claimed subject matter provides a technical mechanism for automatically controlling execution of image processing algorithms for medical images having corresponding metadata, thereby altering how the device performs image processing. This is not insignificant extra solution activity or mere data gathering, but a concrete image processing pipeline executed by the device.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the technical mechanism for automatically controlling execution of image processing algorithms for medical images is nothing more than applying the abstract idea. There is no technical improvement as a result of this implementation and thus this feature does not amount to add significantly more.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights