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 .
Response to Amendments
Amendments overcome the prior art rejections. See the reason for indicating allowable subject matter provided below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Beginning in the last page of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues that:
PNG
media_image1.png
382
1076
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Two different human observers can mentally set their own sensitivity levels for their own mental, visual perception detections. One human observer can have a higher sensitivity setting than the other according to different training or guidance.
On page 9 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues that:
PNG
media_image2.png
1162
1078
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Judicial exception limitations cannot incorporate other judicial exception limitations or themselves into a practical application. Only additional elements, that cannot be interpreted as judicial exceptions, can incorporate into a practical application. As explained above, and in the rejection section below, the limitations pertaining to setting first and second sensitivities are reasonably interpreted as being mental processes. Thus, they are not additional elements and do not incorporate into a practical application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “interface unit” and “computing unit” in claim 13 and “computing unit” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6,8-13,15-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental process abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
“setting a first sensitivity level of a first medical findings detection process and a second sensitivity level of a second medical findings detection process”, which can be reasonably be interpreted as a mental process of human observer(s) mentally adjusting a first and second sensitivity levels for visual perception detection where the first and second medical findings detection process can be different detection guidance provided to the human observer(s);
“generating a first set of candidate medical findings by subjecting the medical image to the first medical findings detection process”, which can be reasonably interpreted as a first human observer viewing a displayed medical image and mentally generating a first set of candidate medical findings according to a first visual perception detection process;
“generating a second set of candidate medical findings by subjecting the medical image to the second medical findings detection process, the second medical findings detection process being different than the first medical findings detection process and the second sensitivity level being a higher sensitivity level than the first sensitivity level of the first medical findings detection process”, which can be reasonably interpreted as a second human observer viewing a displayed image and mentally generating a second set of candidate medical findings according to a second visual perception detection process;
“obtaining a region of interest in the medical image”, which can be reasonably interpreted as human observer(s) viewing a displayed image and mentally designating a region of interest via visual perception;
“identifying, in the region of interest, at least one candidate medical finding comprised in the second set of candidate medical findings and not comprised in the first set of candidate medical findings”, which can be reasonably interpreted as human observer(s) viewing a displayed image and mentally identifying, within the mentally designated region of interest, candidate medical finding comprised in the second set of candidate medical findings – via visual perception; and
“wherein the first medical findings detection process and the second medical findings detection process run in parallel”, which can be reasonably be interpreted as mental processes of multiple human observer performing visual perception detection in parallel.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because additional elements of:
“computer-implemented” are generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer;
“obtaining a medical image, the medical image depicting a body part of a patient” are generically recited insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering; and
“providing the at least one candidate medical finding” are generically recited insignificant extra-solution activity of data outputting.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements of:
“computer-implemented” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f);
“obtaining a medical image, the medical image depicting a body part of a patient” are insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering; and
“providing the at least one candidate medical finding” are insignificant extra-solution activity of data outputting.
Depending claims do not remedy these deficiencies:
Claims 2-8, 12, and 16-18 further recite limitations that can be reasonably be interpreted as being performed mentally by human observer(s), such as radiologist(s), viewing displayed images.
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 recite limitations that are additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering.
Claim 11 recites limitations that are additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity of data outputting.
Claim 15 recites limitations that are additional elements that are generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 21 further recites limitations that can be reasonably be interpreted as being performed mentally by human observer(s), such as radiologist(s), viewing displayed images.
As per claim(s) 13, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 1 are analogous. Claim 13 also recites, “a system comprising… a computing unit is configured to”, which are additional elements that are generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, 16, and 18-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Limitations pertaining to “wherein the first medical findings detection process and the second medical findings detection process run in parallel”, in conjunction with other limitations present in the independent claims, distinguish over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atiba Fitzpatrick whose telephone number is (571) 270-5255. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:00am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on (571) 270-5183. The fax phone number for Atiba Fitzpatrick is (571) 270-6255.
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.
Atiba Fitzpatrick
/ATIBA O FITZPATRICK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights