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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-15, 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorenson et al. U.S. Patent Application No. 2019/0392942 (hereinafter Sorenson’942) in view of Sorenson et al. U.S. Patent Application No. 2018/0137244 (hereinafter Sorenson’244).
Regarding claim 1, Sorenson’942 discloses an interpretation management apparatus (Image processing server 110, Figure 1) comprising a hardware processor (Image processing engines 113-115 and executed by processors; paragraph 64, Figure 2) that:
acquires an automatically generated finding obtained by computer processing on medical information (automatically generated medical data review system findings that are used to create the next image cohort, tools and layout selection/suggestions, optional engine availability and other features and data necessary for medical data review and diagnostic interpretation; paragraphs 34-38, 43- 47 and see the rest of reference);
acquires a first interpretation finding created by a user based on the medical information (presence or absence of a given artifact which can be automatically selected to process the images. The combination of engines processed ensures the optimal and appropriate confidence of the finding output for a given finding; paragraphs 48- 50);
determines whether or not a result combination is a combination for which an active notification is to be performed (Image quantitative data may be compared with a corresponding benchmark associated with the type of the image to determine whether a particular medical condition, medical issue, or disease is present or suspected; paragraphs 62-65), the result combination being a combination of a result of the automatically generated finding and a result of the first interpretation finding (System includes the ability to demonstrate computer generated findings within the viewer such that the generated findings can be seen, accepted, adjusted, deleted or replaced by the reviewing physician. Such report changes by the physical automatically update the report based on physician supplied information; paragraphs 108-109, 129-130, 142, and paragraph 158 indicating that a system to review automatically generated findings); 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 is notified of that change being made; paragraphs 86, 143, 158).
Sorenson does not explicitly disclose wherein the first interpretation finding is created by the user interpreting the medical information independently from the automatically generated finding.
However, Sorenson’244 teaches wherein the first interpretation finding is created by the user interpreting the medical information independently from the automatically generated finding (From the image interpretation environment and with the image processing system generating the automated findings within images, so that the computer-generated findings are adjusted and accepted; paragraphs 121-122, 142-149 and paragraphs 32, 42 indicating image processing engines can work independently or in combination with one another when evoked or enabled on a multi-sided platform which utilizes machine learning, and see the rest of the reference). Such an arrangement provides user convenience.
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 Sorenson’244 to include wherein the first interpretation finding is created by the user interpreting the medical information independently from the automatically generated finding. By doing so, the combined system of Sorenson’244 would have provided for improved medical data review results over time.
Regarding claim 2, Sorenson’942 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 and see the rest of reference).
Regarding claim 3, Sorenson’942 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 and see the rest of reference).
Regarding claim 4, Sorenson’942 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 and see the rest of reference).
Regarding claim 5, Sorenson’942 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 and see the rest of reference).
Regarding claim 6, Sorenson’942 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 and see the rest of reference).
Regarding claim 7, Sorenson’942 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 and see the rest of reference).
Regarding claim 8, Sorenson’942 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 and see the rest of reference).
Regarding claim 9, Sorenson’942 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 and see the rest of reference).
Regarding claim 10, Sorenson’942 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 and see the rest of reference).
Regarding claim 11, Sorenson’942 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 and see the rest of reference).
Regarding claim 12, Sorenson’942 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 and see the rest of reference).
Regarding claim 13, Sorenson’942 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 and see the rest of reference).
Regarding claim 14, Sorenson’942 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 and see the rest of reference).
Regarding claim 15, Sorenson’942 discloses the interpretation management apparatus (Image processing server 110, Figure 1) according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor (Storage device 202 (e.g., hard disks), and executed by one or more processors; paragraph 77, Figure 2)
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, 94, 143,158, Figure 1 and see the rest of reference), 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 and see the rest of reference).
Claims 18-22 have been analyzed and rejected w/r to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 23, Sorenson’942 discloses the interpretation management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor executes a notification setting process including displaying a notification setting screen and receiving a user selection to define one or more combinations for which an active notification is to be performed (a confirmation indication to indicate to the user to confirm such adjustments of findings. For example, the adjustments prompted by the communication interface within artificial intelligence interface 72, when notified of changes to findings by a client viewer or reporting system within workstation 73; paragraph 143 and see the rest of reference).
Regarding claim 24, Sorenson’942 discloses the interpretation management apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor actively notifies an external terminal of a second user of predetermined information in response to determination that the result combination is the one or more combinations for which the active notification is to be performed using a pop-up/blinking notification or a push notification (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; paragraphs 54, 86 and see the rest of reference).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. 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.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicants’ arguments, filed 06/15/2026, with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 101 of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments, filed 06/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sorenson et al. U.S. Patent Application No. 2018/0137244.
Conclusion
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
8. 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
Prosecution Insights