DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with the framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”). For example, concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, Appeal 2018-002948 Application 13/009,053 594-95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)).
Specifically, claim(s) 1-22 are directed toward at least one judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), without significantly more. In accordance with the 2019 PEG, the rationale for this determination is explained below.
Step 1 Statutory Categories (streamlined analysis):
Establishing the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim as a whole, does it fall under one of the four patentable categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101:
(1) process;
(2) machine;
(3) manufacture;
(4) composition of matter.
Step 1:
Representative claims 1, 18, 19, 20 and 22 are directed toward an apparatus, which are a statutory category of invention.
Representative claim 21 is directed toward a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim(s) recite(s) the mental process for processing on medical information, which is an “abstract idea,” without significantly more.
Revised Step 2A; Prong One of Two Prong Inquiry:
Although claim 1 recite a method/apparatus that falls within one of the four patentable categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Supreme Court has "long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception" that "laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012) (quotation omitted). To determine patentable subject matter a revised determination will be made using the 2019 PEG.
"First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts" of "laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). "The inquiry often is whether the claims are directed to 'a specific means or method’ for improving technology or whether they are simply directed to an abstract end-result.". To determine if the claim “recites” and “abstract idea,” the Examiner identifies the specific limitations in the claim under examination the Examiner believes recites an “abstract idea” and determines whether the identified limitation(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG.
The grouping of abstract ideas, as recited in the 2019 PEG, comprises:
(1) Mathematical Concepts/Formulas;
a. mathematical relationships;
b. a mathematical formula or equation;
c. a mathematical calculation;
d. formula;
(2) Mental Processes; and
a. concepts performed by the human mind or by pen and paper (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion);
(3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic practice);
a. fundamental economic principles or practices (e.g. hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
b. commercial or legal interactions (e.g. contracts, legal obligations, business relations, advertising;
c. managing personal behavior or relationships;
d. interactions between people (e.g. social activities, teaching);
Claim Analysis:
(a) Identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an abstract idea (note: abstract idea is highlighted bold);
Claim 1. an interpretation management apparatus comprising a hardware processor that:
acquires an automatically generated finding obtained by computer processing on medical information;
acquires a first interpretation finding created by a user based on the medical information;
determines whether or not a result combination is a combination for which an active notification is to be performed, the result combination being a combination of a result of the automatically generated finding and a result of the first interpretation finding; and
actively notifies predetermined information in response to determination that the result combination is the combination for which the active notification is to be performed.
(b) Determine whether the identified specific limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in 2019 PEG;
Claim Analysis:
The claim recites the limitation(s):
acquires an automatically generated finding obtained by computer processing on medical information;
acquires a first interpretation finding created by a user based on the medical information;
determines whether or not a result combination is a combination for which an active notification is to be performed, the result combination being a combination of a result of the automatically generated finding and a result of the first interpretation finding; and
actively notifies predetermined information in response to determination that the result combination is the combination for which the active notification is to be performed.
Thus, the limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer” language, the claim encompasses the user manually processing information. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
The Examiner identifies that the Applicant’s claim limitations full under 2019 PEG group(s) of abstract idea is/are: (2) Mental Processes; (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity;
Because the claims are directed to the mental process for executing a finding, which is an abstract idea. Since the identified limitations(s) fall within any of the groupings of abstract ides enumerated in the 2019 PEG, the analysis should proceed to Revised Step 2A, Prong Two.
We must now examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an “inventive concept’ sufficient to “transform” the claimed abstract idea into a patent eligible application. A claim that recites an “abstract idea” must include “additional features” to ensure the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the “abstract idea.”
Revised Step 2A, Prong Two of Two Prong Inquiry:
The Examiner then makes a determination if there are there any additional element(s) or a combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the additional element(s) or a combination of elements, recited in the claim, is beyond the judicial exception(s), and
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a “practical application” of the exception? Requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Because the Examiner has found that the claims are directed to abstract ideas/judicial exception, the claims must include an “inventive concept” in order to be patent-eligible, i.e., there must be an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the claim in practice amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea...on a generic computer.
Claim Analysis:
(a) Identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites additional element(s) or a combination of elements:
An interpretation management apparatus comprising a hardware processor that:
acquires an automatically generated finding obtained by computer processing on medical information;
acquires a first interpretation finding created by a user based on the medical information;
determines whether or not a result combination is a combination for which an active notification is to be performed, the result combination being a combination of a result of the automatically generated finding and a result of the first interpretation finding; and
actively notifies predetermined information in response to determination that the result combination is the combination for which the active notification is to be performed.
(b) Does the claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application?
Examples of limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition;
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception;
The Examiner considers whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in:
(1) The functioning of the computer itself; or
(2) Any other technology or technical field.
This is also referred to as a technological solution to a technological problem.
Determine, by the Examiner, that there is a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention in the Specification and the claim itself reflects the
improvement in technology. In determining to identify the “improvement” the Examiner searches both:
(1) The Specification; and
(2) The Claims;
The Specification must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as pertaining to an improvement in technology. For example, the Specification could identify a technical problem and explain how the Specification provides a technical solution.
As to the claims, after the Examiner has consulted the Specification and determined the disclosed invention pertains to an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology. It must be determined whether the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.
Under a “particular machine” consideration, a claim limitation can integrate a judicial exception by implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. This consideration is discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b).
A claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim integrates a judicial exception because the generic computer is 'specially programmed, or is a ‘particular machine, the Examiner should look at whether the added elements integrate the judicial exception. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection.
Under a “particular transformation’ consideration, a claim limitation can integrate a judicial exception by effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. This consideration is discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c).
Under “other meaningful limitations” consideration, a claim limitation can integrate a judicial exception by applying or using 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This consideration is discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e).
Examples of limitations that are “NOT” indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f);
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h).
Result of Claim Analysis:
The claim recites the additional element(s): a hard processor, the “processor” in the step(s) is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Thus, the exception is not integrated into a “practical application,” then the claim is “directed to” the exception, proceed to Step 2B.
Analysis Step 2B:
Because we determine the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we analyze the claims under step 2B of Alice to determine if there are additional limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure the claims amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 76- 77)). Does the claim provide an inventive concept i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) in the claim?
Because the Examiner has found that the claims are directed to abstract ideas/judicial exception, the claims must include an “inventive concept” in order to be patent-eligible, i.e., there must be an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the claim in practice amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea...on a generic computer.
Step 2B includes evaluation of the same considerations as revised Step 2A Prong Two, plus two additional considerations:
whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself;
Claim Analysis:
acquires an automatically generated finding obtained by computer processing on medical information;
acquires a first interpretation finding created by a user based on the medical information;
determines whether or not a result combination is a combination for which an active notification is to be performed, the result combination being a combination of a result of the automatically generated finding and a result of the first interpretation finding; and
actively notifies predetermined information in response to determination that the result combination is the combination for which the active notification is to be performed.
Claim Analysis Result:
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the “abstract idea”). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination, as a whole, adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements, the ordered combination of the elements as a whole, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The additional elements of claim(s) 1 do not change the analysis as claim(s) 1 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because alone, the elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements of claim(s) 1 taken together, as an ordered combination, as a whole, also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements of claim(s) 1 include:
A hardware processor
Applicants “additional elements” disclose generic computer components performing generic computer functions which alone, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Within claim(s) 1, they are recited at a high level of generality and are functioning and processing instructions in a conventional manner known in the industry. Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an “abstract idea” (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an “abstract idea,” such as an idea that could be done by human analog (i.e. by hand or by merely thinking). This is the central issue with the claimed invention as the computer elements are merely used as a tool to carry out the “abstract idea,” to perform functions, such as:
acquires an automatically generated finding obtained by computer processing on medical information;
acquires a first interpretation finding created by a user based on the medical information;
determines whether or not a result combination is a combination for which an active notification is to be performed, the result combination being a combination of a result of the automatically generated finding and a result of the first interpretation finding; and
actively notifies predetermined information in response to determination that the result combination is the combination for which the active notification is to be performed.
which are well-understood and conventional to the industry. Thus taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the “abstract idea”). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination, as a whole, adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements, the ordered combination of the elements as a whole, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation as the Specification, which merely indicate generic and conventional computing components, used as a tool to implement the “abstract idea, without specifically identifying improvements to the technology utilized, rather indicating technology is merely utilized as a tool to implement the “abstract idea.”
Applicant's limitations are represent instructions for the “abstract idea” and/or insignificant post-solution activity. Moreover, these limitations do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the “abstract idea” to a particular technological environment. Viewing these limitations in combination with the elements that set forth the “abstract idea,” the claim(s) 1 merely instruct the process that
acquires an automatically generated finding obtained by computer processing on medical information;
acquires a first interpretation finding created by a user based on the medical information;
determines whether or not a result combination is a combination for which an active notification is to be performed, the result combination being a combination of a result of the automatically generated finding and a result of the first interpretation finding; and
actively notifies predetermined information in response to determination that the result combination is the combination for which the active notification is to be performed.
which are instructions to implement the “abstract idea.”
Furthermore, the limitations whish set forth the “abstract idea” do not appear to be sufficiently supported by the required algorithm(s) necessary to carry out their claimed function in a specific, limiting manner, thereby indicating a high level or preemption.
Conclusion
Thus, when all of the limitations of the claims are considered, both individually and as an ordered combination as outlined above, the Examiner concludes that the claim is not directed to a patent-eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101 because it does not amount to significantly more than the “abstract idea.”
Additionally, the Examiner would additionally point out the following:
“The method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. See ibid. (“There is no specific or limiting recitation of ... improved computer technology …”); Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 28-30. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. See, e.g., Diehr, 450 U. S., at 177-178. Instead, the claims at issue amount to “nothing significantly more” than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer.”
Also, the Examiner would like to point out that “claims for which computers are invoked merely as a tool...use of a computer as a tool — economic task, or method of conducting business, the computer acts as a device to move and hold data, but the computer is used merely in its ordinary capacity of routine computerization of bookkeeping functions are not tied to a technological advance.” “Furthermore, merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1327 (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea ... does not render the claim non-abstract.”); see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093—94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining the pending claims were directed to a combination of abstract ideas).”
Also, the Examiner would like to point out that “an inventive concept that transforms the “abstract idea”’ into a patent-eligible invention must be significantly more than the “abstract idea” itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the “abstract idea” on a computer.”
Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Dependent claim(s) 2-17 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further.
For instance, in claim(s) 2-17 the steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of [organizing human activities, mental process, mathematical concepts/formulas] because these steps further describe the intermediary steps of the underlying process.
In all the dependent claim(s), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. This is because the claim(s) do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the dependent claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, the claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claim(s) also are not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 18-22 contains similar language or like deficiencies found in claim 1.
Dependent claim(s) 2-17 do not add any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above and are rejected accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-15, 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorenson et al. U.S. Patent Application No. 2019/0392942 (hereinafter Sorenson) in view of Sabol John et al. Japan Application No. (JP 2004-199691 A) (hereinafter Sabol), Information Disclosure Statement (IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Sorenson discloses an interpretation management apparatus (Image processing apparatus 110, Figures 1-2) comprising a hardware processor (Image processing engines 113-115 and executed by processors; paragraph 64, Figure 2) that:
acquires a generated finding obtained by computer processing on medical information (Current information or automations tools that are desired to be used in a diagnostic or research interpretation process of engines, one which finds the body part, and another that detects signs of leading diseases in that area, and finally another that can match these findings with clinical information resources; paragraphs 21-22, 36, 47);
acquires a first interpretation finding created by a user based on the medical information (Ensemble engines may be combined, for example, one which finds the body part, and another that detects signs of leading diseases in that area, and finally another that can match these findings with clinical information resources and recommendations to provide assistance and direction to the physician; paragraph 49);
determines whether or not a result combination is a combination for which an active notification is to be performed (Outputs of the image processing engines are aggregated to generate a result; paragraph 65), the result combination being a combination of a result of the generated finding and a result of the first interpretation finding (Engines which find findings or any combination thereof can be different engines to detect the same finding. Such a configuration can enable comparing the findings from the engines, providing physicians with immediate access to multiple tools and a quick overview of the findings; paragraphs 73-74); and
actively notifies predetermined information in response to determination that the result combination is the combination for which the active notification is to be performed (An adjustment engine that via the communication interface receives notifications of changes to the medical findings, then the report is updated and user 81 is notified of that change being made; paragraphs 86, 143, 158).
Sorenson does not explicitly disclose acquiring an automatically generated finding on medical information.
However, Sabol et al. (JP 2004-199691) (hereinafter Sabol) working in the same field of endeavor teaches acquiring an automatically generated finding on medical information (Automated detection routines; paragraphs 0005, 0042).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the system of Sorenson as taught by Sabol to include: acquiring an automatically generated finding on medical information. By doing so, the combined system of Sabol would have provided during the mismatch resolution process to enhance and improve the matching process.
Regarding claim 2, Sorenson discloses the interpretation management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the hardware processor enables setting, by a user operation, the combination for which the active notification is to be performed among the result combination (Report may contain status indications for each finding as to whether that particular finding has been adjusted, accepted, replaced or rejected, or made as an original independent finding by the end user; paragraph 142), and
the hardware processor determines, based on the set combination for which the active notification is to be performed, whether or not the result combination is the combination for which the active notification is to be performed (Results available for pickup by any system capable of communicating with the interface or any combination thereof. The diagnostic review system allows the user to view and confirm findings. The diagnostic review system tracks whether the findings are confirmed; paragraphs 35, 49, 130, 137).
Regarding claim 3, Sorenson discloses the interpretation management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the hardware processor enables setting, by a user operation, the combination for which the active notification is to be performed among the result combination and a threshold value of a certainty degree of the automatically generated finding (Processing engines working in combination with tracking module 78 can essentially “learn” the display preferences and adapt them to user preferences or belief system to adapt which findings are important to user 81 and to adjust these initial finding; paragraphs 152-153), and
the hardware processor determines, based on the set combination for which the active notification is to be performed and the threshold value of the certainty degree of the automatically generated finding, whether or not the result combination is the combination for which the active notification is to be performed (an adjustment engine 79 or any combination thereof. Image processor 76 can process image data 71, to generate findings by selecting a threshold that adjusts the brightness or signal to get the desired result; paragraph 142).
Regarding claim 4, Sorenson discloses the interpretation management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor actively notifies that the active notification is a notification based on the result of the first interpretation finding (Adjustment engine 79 can enable a user to adjust findings within the image interpretation environment such that the adjustments. Adjustment engine 79 can enable a user to adjust findings. For example, the adjustments prompted by the communication interface within artificial intelligence interface 72, when notified of changes to findings; paragraphs 143-145).
Regarding claim 5, Sorenson discloses the interpretation management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor actively notifies that the active notification is a notification based on the result of the automatically generated finding and the result of the first interpretation finding (Finding system allows physicians to keep their eyes on a view viewer to review automatically generated findings, which correlate to the findings And, when any finding is adjusted that results in a change in the level, for example to severe, then the report is updated and user 81 is notified of that change being made; paragraph 158).
Regarding claim 6, Sorenson discloses the interpretation management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the result of the automatically generated finding is a result of presence or absence of detection of a lesion in the automatically generated finding, and the result of the first interpretation finding is a result of presence or absence of detection of a lesion in the first interpretation finding (Image processing engines are used to confirm or verify findings by the physicians, where the engines operate as medical data review systems. The image processing engines can also be utilized to screen and identify any images that are more likely to have abnormal findings; paragraphs 30-31).
Regarding claim 7, Sorenson discloses the interpretation management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the result of the automatically generated finding is a result of a detected position of a lesion in the automatically generated finding, and the result of the first interpretation finding is a result of a detected position of a lesion in the first interpretation finding (Users of the medical image interpretation system. For example, the stored preferences based on a machine learning engine that receives tracking information and based on the tracking information, the findings are abnormalities within medical images. For example, the finding may be a disease, a medically significant anatomic anomaly, a medically significant indication; paragraph 159).
Regarding claim 8, Sorenson discloses the interpretation management apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the hardware processor enables setting, by a user operation, to perform the active notification for a combination in which the result of the automatically generated finding has an abnormal finding and the result of the first interpretation finding does not have an abnormal finding among the result combination (Image processing engines are configured to perform image processing operations to detect any abnormal findings of the medical images, or to optimize clinical workflow in accordance with the preferences to generate a first result describing the abnormal findings or preferred presentation of the images and normal and/or abnormal findings; paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 9, Sorenson discloses the interpretation management apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the hardware processor enables setting, by a user operation, not to perform the active notification for a combination in which the result of the automatically generated finding has an abnormal finding and the result of the first interpretation finding does not have an abnormal finding among the result combination (The image processing engines are configured to perform image processing operations to optimize clinical workflow in accordance with the preferences or computer-observed working ways of the end and to generate a first result describing the preferred presentation of the images and normal and /or abnormal findings; paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 10, Sorenson discloses the interpretation management apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the hardware processor enables setting, by a user operation, not to perform the active notification for a combination in which the result of the automatically generated finding does not have an abnormal finding and the result of the first interpretation finding does not have an abnormal finding among the result combination (The image processing engines are configured to perform image processing operations to optimize clinical workflow in accordance with the preferences or computer-observed working ways of the end and to generate a first result describing the preferred presentation of the images and normal findings; paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 11, Sorenson discloses the interpretation management apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the hardware processor enables setting, by a user operation, to perform the active notification or a passive notification for a combination in which the result of the automatically generated finding has an abnormal finding and the result of the first interpretation finding has an abnormal finding among the result combination (Flagging can include displaying the actual finding(s), or derived summary indication utilizing a combination of findings, marking that the study was normal/abnormal, a series of macro level indication choices (e.g., red, yellow, green, or orange) depicting the risk of the findings, marking with severity (e.g., mild, moderate, or severe) or icons denoting a finding (e.g., a simple mark denoting that there is a findings), relevant tools automatically evoked in the image viewing system, or any combination thereof; paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 12, Sorenson discloses the interpretation management apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the hardware processor actively notifies a user in response to an urgency of an abnormal finding extracted from the automatically generated findings being high (A series of macro level indication choices (e.g., red, yellow, green, or orange) depicting the risk of the findings, marking with severity (e.g., mild, moderate, or severe) or icons denoting a finding (e.g., a simple mark denoting that there is a findings); paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 13, Sorenson discloses the interpretation management apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the hardware processor determines that the result combination is the combination for which the active notification is to be performed in response to the result combination being the set combination for which the active notification is to be performed and the certainty degree of the automatically generated finding being equal to or larger than the threshold value (image processing engine can either a) determine through training (automatic) that a new algorithm or filter is needed or b) simply set the threshold different in the viewer, when making the findings calculations, or producing derived images with difference thresholds; paragraph 153).
Regarding claim 14, Sorenson discloses the interpretation management apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the hardware processor determines that the result combination is a combination for which the active notification is not to be performed in response to the certainty degree of the automatically generated finding being equal to or smaller than the threshold value (image processing engine can either a) determine through training (automatic) that a new algorithm or filter is needed or b) simply set the threshold different in the viewer, when making the findings calculations, or producing derived images with difference thresholds; paragraph 153).
Regarding claim 15, Sorenson discloses the interpretation management apparatus (Image processing server 110, Figure 1) according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor
actively notifies a first external terminal (Client device 101, Figure 1) of the predetermined information in response to the determination that the result combination is the combination for which the active notification is to be performed (an adjustment engine that via the communication interface receives notifications of changes to the medical findings made by a user when using the diagnostic review system; a tracking module that tracks findings and adjustments made to the medical findings by the user when using the diagnostic review system; paragraphs 86, 143,158, Figure 1), and
does not actively notify the first external terminal of the predetermined information and passively notifies a second external terminal of predetermined information in response to determination that the result combination is not the combination for which the active notification is to be performed (Initial findings based on the image data can be generated and displayed in the image interpretation environment. The initial findings can be tracked via tracking module 78 tracks findings and adjustments made to findings by a user when the user uses a diagnostic review system; paragraphs 147-149).
Claims 18-22 have been analyzed and rejected w/r to claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (the 101 rejection is overcome).
Information Disclosure Statement
9. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/13/2023, 12/11/2024 and 06/09/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Cited Art
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Raman et al. (US 2009/0196479) discloses a method for prioritizing medical imaging scans, said method comprising: acquiring a first image set of medical images; selecting a computer aided diagnosis application based on information associated with said first image set; examining the first image set with said computer aided diagnosis application; identifying the first image set as priority if the examination of the first image set by the computer aided diagnosis application indicates the first image set contains urgent findings, further comprising notifying a user that the first image set has been identified as priority, wherein notifying said user that the first image set has been identified as priority includes updating the work list of a physician, further comprising identifying the first image set as non-priority if the examination of the first image set by the computer aided diagnosis application indicates the first image set does not contain urgent findings, wherein said information associated with said first image set includes information regarding the technique used to acquire the first image set.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am-4 pm.
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, ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN can be reached at (571) 270-5254. 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.
/ALLEN H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683