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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite organizing human activity, as it is a computer implemented method for providing a template data structure for a medical report. Examiner asserts that with the recitation of generating representations of medical image data for display, and providing the template data structure for example, these limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, recites managing interaction between people related to social activities. As noted in the below rejection, the use of the user input is interpreted as part of the abstract idea and the “automated” nature of predicting finding type recites the use of the generic computing system to merely automate the process.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea but rather a specific, practical application that provides a technical improvement to the field of computer-assisted medical reporting. Examiner further asserts that the recitation of providing of the template data structure in a targeted manner is the result of generic computer implementation to increase efficiency of the task, which would not demonstrate a technical improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(f), specifically” "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” Additionally, the improvement of the workflow efficiency, diagnostic accuracy, providing real-time assistance and improvements to the preparation of structured medical reports recites improvement to the abstract idea, not a technology improvement related to medical informatics as the abstract idea is carried out using generic computing components such as the user interface. See MPEP 2106.05(a)II, particularly “Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” Further, see the rejection under 35 USC 101 in regards to claims 13 and 21 as these claims are rejected in a similar manner.
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.
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), 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 claims 14 and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
It is appropriate for the Examiner to determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test as recited in the following Steps: 1, 2A, and 2B, see MPEP 2106(III.).
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 1:
First, the Examiner is to establish whether the claim falls within any statutory category including a process, a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, see MPEP 2106.03(II.) and MPEP 2106.03(I).
Claims 13 and 21 are related to a system, and claims 1-12, 22-24, 14-20 are also related to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, these claims are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong One:
Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test demonstrates whether a clam is directed to a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(I.). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, where Prong One establishes the judicial exception. Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes, see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(1.) and 2106.04(a)(2).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea as underlined in the following limitations. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for providing a template data structure for a medical report, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a medical image data set of a patient;
generating a representation of the medical image data set for display via a user interface;
providing the representation for display via the user interface;
receiving, via the user interface, input directed to a medical finding visible in the representation;
predicting a finding type of the medical finding based on the input;
performing a lookup operation in a database to identify the template data structure for the medical report corresponding to the finding type; and
providing the template data structure.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing interactions between people as the following abstract limitations are related to providing a template data structure for a medical report:
“receiving” a medical image data set of a patient, which is an abstract limitation related to observing a communication of the data of the patient,
“generating” a representation of the medical image data set for “display” and providing the representation for “display”, which is an abstract limitation related to a representation generated by a user and communicating the generated representation to another user,
“receiving” input directed to a medical finding visible in the representation, which is an abstract limitation related to a communication of the input directed to a medical finding,
“predicting” a finding type of the medical finding based on the input, which is an abstract limitation related to an analysis for a finding type,
“identify” the template data structure for the medical report corresponding to the finding type, which is an abstract limitation related to an analysis to identify the template data structure for the medical report corresponding to the finding type,
“providing” the template data structure, which is an abstract limitation related to a communication of the previously identified template data structure.
The claim limitations as a whole recite steps for providing a template data structure for a medical report, and with the steps of analysis and communication of the template for the medical report for the patient, and therefore recite managing interactions between people. Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., user interface) and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, dependent claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fails to make the abstract idea any less abstract as noted below:
Claims 2 and 16 recite abstract limitations of “predicting” a finding type of a medial findings based on inputs made to representations of medical image data sets, further describing the abstract idea. Claims 4 and 5 recite abstract limitations of “obtaining” supplemental information and where the previous prediction is further based on the supplemental information, further describing the abstract idea. Claims 6 and 17 recite abstract limitations of “identifying” from reference images from other patients, similar medical images based on similarity metric, further describing the abstract idea. Claims 7 and 18 recite abstract limitations further describing the identification of similar medical image which includes “extracting” image descriptors from the reference images and the representation, and “determining” a similarity metric for each reference image, further describing the abstract idea. Claims 8 and 19 recite abstract limitations of “determining” an anatomical location that the input is directed to based on the input of the representation and where the prediction is further based on the anatomical location, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 9 recites abstract limitations of “obtaining” display settings for when the user is displaying the representation, and where the prediction is further based on the settings, further describing the abstract idea. Claims 10 and 20 recite abstract limitations of “obtaining” image parameters of the image data set, where the settings are from the acquisition of the medical image data set, and where the parameter is used for the prediction, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 11 recites abstract limitations further describing the input directed to “generating” a measurement of an image feature in the representation and where the finding prediction is further based on the measurement, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 12 recites abstract limitations of “predicting” likely finding types for selection by a user, “providing” likely finding types to the user, “receiving” user input selecting a finding type from among the likely finding types, and “providing” the selected finding type as the medical finding type, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 22 recites further abstract limitation describing the input as designating to the medical finding directly in the representation, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 24 recites further of filling the template data structure to “generate” the report based on the data stricture and the input of the medical finding visible in the representation, further describing the abstract idea.
Additionally, regarding claim 13:
A system for providing a template data structure for a medical report, the system comprising:
a database configured to store a plurality of template data structures for medical reports, each template data structure corresponding to a distinct finding type of a medical finding;
an interface unit configured to
receive a medical image data set of a patient,
forward a representation of the medical image data set for display,
receive input directed to indicating a medical finding in the representation, and
provide the template data structure to a user; and
a computing unit configured to
generate the representation of the medical image data set for display,
predict a finding type of the medical finding based on the input, and
perform a lookup operation in the database to identify the template data structure corresponding to the predicted finding type.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing interactions between people as the following abstract limitations are related to providing a template data structure for a medical report:
“receive” a medical image data set of a patient, which is an abstract limitation related to observing a communication of the data of the patient,
“forward” a representation of the medical image data set for “display”, which is an abstract limitation related to a representation sent by a user and communicating the generated representation to another user,
“receive” input directed to indicating a medical finding in the representation, which is an abstract limitation related to a communication of the input directed to a medical finding,
“provide” the template data structure to a user, which is an abstract limitation related to a communication of the previously identified template data structure,
“generate” the representation of the medical image data set for “display”, which is an abstract limitation related to a representation generated by the user and communicating the generated representation to the other user,
“predict” a finding type of the medical finding based on the input, which is an abstract limitation related to an analysis for a finding type,
“identify” the template data structure corresponding to the predicted finding type, which is an abstract limitation related to an analysis to identify the template data structure for the medical report corresponding to the finding type.
The claim limitations as a whole recite steps for providing a template data structure for a medical report, and with the steps of analysis and communication of the template for the medical report for the patient, and therefore recite managing interactions between people. Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., database) and will be discussed in further detail below.
Additionally, regarding claim 21:
A system for providing a template data structure for a medical report, the system comprising:
a database configured to store a plurality of template data structures for medical reports, each template data structure corresponding to a distinct finding type of a medical finding; and
at least one processor configured to cause the system to
receive a medical image data set of a patient,
generate a representation of the medical image data set for display via a user interface,
provide the representation for display via the user interface,
receive, via the user interface, input directed to a medical finding visible in the representation,
predict a finding type of the medical finding based on the input,
perform a lookup operation in the database to identify the template data structure for the medical report corresponding to the finding type, and
provide the template data structure.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing interactions between people as the following abstract limitations are related to providing a template data structure for a medical report:
“receive” a medical image data set of a patient, which is an abstract limitation related to observing a communication of the data of the patient,
“generate” a representation of the medical image data set for “display” and “provide” the representation for “display”, which is an abstract limitation related to a representation generated by a user and communicating the generated representation to another user,
“receive” input directed to a medical finding visible in the representation, which is an abstract limitation related to a communication of the input directed to a medical finding,
“predict” a finding type of the medical finding based on the input, which is an abstract limitation related to an analysis for a finding type,
“identify” the template data structure for the medical report corresponding to the finding type, which is an abstract limitation related to an analysis to identify the template data structure for the medical report corresponding to the finding type,
“provide” the template data structure, which is an abstract limitation related to a communication of the previously identified template data structure.
The claim limitations as a whole recite steps for providing a template data structure for a medical report, and with the steps of analysis and communication of the template for the medical report for the patient, and therefore recite managing interactions between people. Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., database) and will be discussed in further detail below.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrates the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exceptions into a “practical application,” see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(2.) and 2106.04(d)(I.).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
Regarding claim 1:
A computer-implemented method for providing a template data structure for a medical report, the computer-implemented method comprising (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
receiving a medical image data set of a patient;
generating a representation of the medical image data set for display via a user interface (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
providing the representation for display via the user interface;
receiving, via the user interface, input directed to a medical finding visible in the representation;
predicting a finding type of the medical finding based on the input;
performing a lookup operation in a database to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) identify the template data structure for the medical report corresponding to the finding type; and
providing the template data structure.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of the method being computer-implemented, use of a user interface to perform steps of the method, and performing a lookup operation in a database to perform a step in the method, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0145, 0147] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of processors and generic computing components such as user interfaces to perform steps of the method. [0144, 0145] recites the generic user interface. [0155, 0168, 0170, 0218] recites the use of a generically configured database for the templates where there is use of a generic lookup function used at the database. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set below:
Claims 2, 3 and 16 recite additional elements of using a prediction function that includes a machine learned function that is trained using training data as described, however the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components. Claims 14 and 15 recite additional elements of using a “non-transitory” computer program product and computer-readable medium using generic computing components to carry out the method, however the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components. Claim 23 recites additional elements further describing the medical findings and interactions with the generic user interface as clicking in the representation in the user interface, which still recites generic UI tool interactions that amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components. Claim 24 recites further additional elements of the filling of the template being done “automatically”, however this recites mere automation of the abstract idea using the generic computing system and does not recite a technology improvement.
Regarding claim 13:
A system for providing a template data structure for a medical report, the system comprising:
a database configured to store a plurality of template data structures for medical reports, each template data structure corresponding to a distinct finding type of a medical finding (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
an interface unit configured to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
receive a medical image data set of a patient,
forward a representation of the medical image data set for display,
receive input directed to indicating a medical finding in the representation, and
provide the template data structure to a user; and
a computing unit configured to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
generate the representation of the medical image data set for display,
predict a finding type of the medical finding based on the input, and
perform a lookup operation in the database to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) identify the template data structure corresponding to the predicted finding type.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of the use of the overall computing system, a database configured to store a plurality of template data structures for medical reports, each template data structure corresponding to a distinct finding type of a medical finding, an interface unit configured to perform steps of the system, use of a computing unit to perform steps of the system, and performing a lookup operation in the database, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0137] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the overall generic computing system. [0155, 0168, 0170, 0218] recites the use of a generically configured database for the templates where the data structure corresponds to distinct findings types, and where there is use of a generic lookup function used at the database. [0145] recites the generically configured interface unit. [0153, 0154] recites the generically configured computing unit. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Regarding claim 21:
A system for providing a template data structure for a medical report, the system comprising:
a database configured to store a plurality of template data structures for medical reports, each template data structure corresponding to a distinct finding type of a medical finding; and (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
at least one processor configured to cause the system to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
receive a medical image data set of a patient,
generate a representation of the medical image data set for display via a user interface (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
provide the representation for display via the user interface,
receive, via the user interface, input directed to a medical finding visible in the representation,
predict a finding type of the medical finding based on the input,
perform a lookup operation in the database to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) identify the template data structure for the medical report corresponding to the finding type, and
provide the template data structure.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of the overall computing system, a database configured to store a plurality of template data structures for medical reports, each template data structure corresponding to a distinct finding type of a medical finding, use of a processor to perform steps, use of a user interface to perform steps, and performing a lookup operation in the database, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0137] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the overall generic computing system. [0155, 0168, 0170, 0218] recites the use of a generically configured database for the templates where the data structure corresponds to distinct findings types, and where there is use of a generic lookup function used at the database. [0145] recites the use of the generic processor. [0144] recites the use of the generic user interface. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Taken alone, the additional elements for each of these claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations for each of the claims as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to provide a template data structure for a medical report, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, see MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b).
Thus, taken alone and in ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, the independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(II.). Further, it may need to be established, when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, that the additional elements recite well understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 1:
Regarding the additional limitation of the method being computer-implemented, use of a user interface to perform steps of the method, and performing a lookup operation in a database to perform a step in the method, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”). [0145, 0147] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of processors and generic computing components such as user interfaces to perform steps of the method. [0144, 0145] recites the generic user interface. [0155, 0168, 0170, 0218] recites the use of a generically configured database for the templates where there is use of a generic lookup function used at the database. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The retrieval of the template from the generic database recites the well understood, routine, and conventional activity of retrieving information from memory.
Regarding claim 13:
Regarding the additional limitation of the use of the overall computing system, a database configured to store a plurality of template data structures for medical reports, each template data structure corresponding to a distinct finding type of a medical finding, an interface unit configured to perform steps of the system, use of a computing unit to perform steps of the system, and performing a lookup operation in the database, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”). [0137] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the overall generic computing system. [0155, 0168, 0170, 0218] recites the use of a generically configured database for the templates where the data structure corresponds to distinct findings types, and where there is use of a generic lookup function used at the database. [0145] recites the generically configured interface unit. [0153, 0154] recites the generically configured computing unit. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The retrieval of the template from the generic database recites the well understood, routine, and conventional activity of retrieving information from memory.
Regarding claim 21:
Regarding the additional limitation of the overall computing system, a database configured to store a plurality of template data structures for medical reports, each template data structure corresponding to a distinct finding type of a medical finding, use of a processor to perform steps, use of a user interface to perform steps, and performing a lookup operation in the database, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”). [0137] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the overall generic computing system. [0155, 0168, 0170, 0218] recites the use of a generically configured database for the templates where the data structure corresponds to distinct findings types, and where there is use of a generic lookup function used at the database. [0145] recites the use of the generic processor. [0144] recites the use of the generic user interface. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The retrieval of the template from the generic database recites the well understood, routine, and conventional activity of retrieving information from memory.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and therefore claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0051771 A1 to Lyman et al. (“Lyman”):
Regarding claim 21:
Lyman teaches a system for providing a template data structure for a medical report, the system comprising: ([0288]- overall system is described. [0320]- system is used for report generation where report template data is used to fill the report (interpreted as providing a template data structure from a medical report).)
a database configured to store a plurality of template data structures for medical reports, each template data structure corresponding to a distinct finding type of a medical finding; and ([0308]- use of database for the templates, where the templates include sample text to apply diagnosis guidelines (interpreted as a databased configured to store template data structures, where the text with diagnosis guidelines is interpreted as the types of medical findings).)
at least one processor configured to cause the system to receive a medical image data set of a patient, ([0063]- medical scan entries and associated data directly transmitted to the subsystem (interpreted as receiving medical image data set for a patient).)
generate a representation of the medical image data set for display via a user interface, provide the representation for display via the user interface, ([0039]- the system can generate scan review data for a medical scan based on user input on a user interface on a display (interpreted as generating a representation of medical image data for display via the UI).)
receive, via the user interface, input directed to a medical finding visible in the representation, ([0081]- display parameter data has entries for abnormalities that includes interactive interface feature data which indicates selected interface features associated with the display of abnormalities (interpreted as receiving input via the UI directed to a medical finding in the representation, where the abnormalities are interpreted as a medical finding visible in the representation).)
predict a finding type of the medical finding based on the input, ([0277]- inference function can be done to generate lesion change prediction data, where inferences are generated from interactive interface as described in [0116] (predicting a finding type of the medical finding based on the UI input).)
perform a lookup operation in the database to identify the template data structure for the medical report corresponding to the finding type, and ([0309]- searching the report template database for the sample text for the report to apply diagnosis guidelines to an abnormality (interpreted as doing a lookup operation in a database to identify the template data structure for the report corresponding to the finding type).)
provide the template data structure. ([0345]- the interactive interface can present to a user a prompt to edit the report template data (interpreted as providing the template data structure).)
Claim 1 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 21.
Regarding claim 2:
Lyman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lyman further teaches providing a prediction function configured to predict a finding type of medical findings based on at least input made with respect to representations of medical image data sets, wherein the predicting includes applying the prediction function to the input, and the prediction function includes a machine-learned function trained to predict the finding type of medical findings based on at least the input made with respect to the representations of the medical image data sets. ([0052]- learning algorithm is used. [0105, 0110]- training data is used where the training is to improve the inference function (based on the input on the UI for the medical image data representation, use trained ML prediction function to predict the diagnosis finding).)
Claim 16 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 2.
Regarding claim 3:
Lyman teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. Lyman further teaches wherein the machine-learned function has been trained based on medical image data sets respectively depicting a body part of a patient and including at least one medical finding with a verified finding type. ([0134]- training set data uses feature vectors and includes features such as abnormality data and data related to the medical scans.)
Regarding claim 4:
Lyman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lyman further teaches obtaining supplementary medical information of the patient, and wherein the predicting is further based on the supplementary medical information. ([0070]- patient history data is obtained and includes previous medical history and risk factor data)
Regarding claim 5:
Lyman teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Lyman further teaches wherein the supplementary medical information includes one or more of: a prior medical report of the patient, a-priori knowledge of at least one type of medical problem the patient is suspected to have, an indication of a diagnostic task to be performed based on the medical image data set for the patient, a medical guideline applicable for the patient, or an electronic health record of the patient. ([0070]- patient history data is obtained and includes previous medical history and risk factor data)
Regarding claim 6:
Lyman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lyman further teaches identifying, from a plurality of reference medical images of reference patients that are different from the patient, at least one similar medical image based on degrees of similarity between the representation and individual reference medical images, wherein each reference medical image includes one or more findings with a verified finding type, and the predicting is further based on at least one verified finding type of the at least one similar medical image. (0082-0087 longitudinal data from patient database? Use of similar cases to users of the system [0054]- system can retrieve similar medical scans)
Claim 17 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 6.
Regarding claim 7:
Lyman teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Lyman further teaches wherein the identifying the at least one similar medical image comprises: extracting an image descriptor from the representation; extracting a corresponding image descriptor from each of the plurality of reference medical images; and determining, for each of the plurality of reference medical images, a similarity metric indicative of a degree of similarity between the image descriptor and the corresponding image descriptor. ([0084, 0085]- when comparing to similar scan data, a similarity score can determine how similar the scans are to the abnormality annotation data of the medical scans. Similar scan data includes parameter data (interpreted as the use of descriptors from the reference medical images).)
Claim 18 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 7.
Regarding claim 8:
Lyman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lyman further teaches determining an anatomical location the input is directed to based on the input and at least one of the representation or the medical image data set, and wherein the predicting the finding type is further based on the anatomical location. ([0257]- anatomical location determined based on lesion detection function)
Claim 19 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 8.
Regarding claim 9:
Lyman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lyman further teaches obtaining one or more display settings applied for the representation upon displaying the representation, and wherein the predicting the finding type is further based on the display settings. ([0081]- display parameter data for preferred display of the medical scan (interpreted as the display setting).)
Regarding claim 10:
Lyman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lyman further teaches obtaining at least one imaging parameter of the medical image data set, the at least one imaging parameter relating to settings used during at least one of acquisition or pre-processing of the medical image data set, and wherein the predicting is further based on the at least one imaging parameter. ([0065]- scan classifier data includes data specific to the imaging parameters including contrast agent data, for example.)
Claim 20 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 10.
Regarding claim 11:
Lyman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lyman further teaches wherein the input is directed to generate a measurement of an image feature depicted in the representation, and the predicting the finding type is further based on the measurement. ([0260]- lesion measurement function)
Regarding claim 12:
Lyman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lyman further teaches wherein the predicting comprises: predicting a plurality of likely finding types for selection by a user, providing the plurality of likely finding types to the user, receiving user input selecting a finding type from among the likely finding types, and providing the selected finding type as the finding type of the medical finding. ([0072]- abnormality annotation data and determines a likelihood of a classification is present.)
Regarding claim 14:
Lyman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lyman further teaches a non-transitory computer program product comprising program elements, which induce a computing unit of a system for providing a template data structure for a medical report to perform the computer-implemented method according to claim 1 when the program elements are loaded into a memory of the computing unit. ([0434]- non-transitory)
Regarding claim 15:
Lyman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lyman further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program elements that, when executed by a computing unit of a system for providing a template data structure for a medical report, cause the system to perform the computer-implemented method according to claim 1. ([0434]- non-transitory)
Regarding claim 13:
Lyman teaches a system for providing a template data structure for a medical report, the system comprising: ([0288]- overall system is described. [0320]- system is used for report generation where a template is used to fill the report (interpreted as providing a template data structure from a medical report).)
a database configured to store a plurality of template data structures for medical reports, each template data structure corresponding to a distinct finding type of a medical finding; ([0308]- use of database for the templates, where the templates include sample text to apply diagnosis guidelines (interpreted as a databased configured to store template data structures, where the text with diagnosis guidelines is interpreted as the types of medical findings).)
an interface unit configured to receive a medical image data set of a patient, ([0063]- medical scan entries and associated data directly transmitted to the subsystem, where the image can be viewed on an interactive interface as described in [0081] (interpreted as receiving medical image data set for a patient via an interface unit).)
forward a representation of the medical image data set for display, ([0039]- the system can generate scan review data for a medical scan based on user input on a user interface on a display (interpreted as forwarding a representation of medical image data for display via the UI).)
receive input directed to indicating a medical finding in the representation, and ([0081]- display parameter data has entries for abnormalities that includes interactive interface feature data which indicates selected interface features associated with the display of abnormalities (interpreted as receiving input via the UI directed to a medical finding in the representation, where the abnormalities are interpreted as a medical finding visible in the representation).)
provide the template data structure to a user; and ([0345]- the interactive interface can present to a user a prompt to edit the report template data (interpreted as providing the template data structure).)
a computing unit configured to generate the representation of the medical image data set for display, ([0039]- the system can generate scan review data for a medical scan based on user input on a user interface on a display (interpreted as generating a representation of medical image data for display via the UI).)
predict a finding type of the medical finding based on the input, and ([0277]- inference function can be done to generate lesion change prediction data, where inferences are generated from interactive interface as described in [0116] (predicting a finding type of the medical finding based on the UI input).)
perform a lookup operation in the database to identify the template data structure corresponding to the predicted finding type. ([0309]- searching the report template database for the sample text for the report to apply diagnosis guidelines to an abnormality (interpreted as doing a lookup operation in a database to identify the template data structure for the report corresponding to the finding type).)
Regarding claim 22:
Lyman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lyman further teaches wherein the input designates the medical finding directly in the representation. ([0081]- diagnosis can be inputted by user into the displayed medical scan)
Regarding claim 23:
Lyman teaches all of the limitations of claim 22. Lyman further teaches wherein the medical finding is designated directly in the representation by one of more of clicking, drawing contours, or invoking a measurement tool in the representation. ([0307]- clicking used to display data over the image data corresponding to an abnormality)
Regarding claim 24:
Lyman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Lyman further teaches automatically filling the template data structure to generate the medical report based on the template data structure and the input directed to the medical finding visible in the representation. ([0339]- automatic population of text into report)
The following reference has been considered as relevant, however have not been used in the above rejections:
US-20210110897-A1 to Ginsburg et al. teaches of a dynamic system for displaying image medical records.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS whose telephone number is (571)272-6719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM 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, Jason B Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. 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.
/CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights