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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 has been considered and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed on 1-16-26 have been entered and are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the amendments go beyond mental process and mathematical concepts and that it can’t be practically performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments falls under methods of organizing human activities. The MPEP recites that “the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping” 2106.04(a)(2). The claims at the end of it does not even displayed in the segmented image, it merely predicts an adverse reaction data.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are drawn to a computer implemented method and system which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 1, 19 and 20 recite “training an image-based adverse reaction prediction function based on utilizing artificial intelligence to process a training set that includes a first plurality of medical image data corresponding to a first plurality of individuals”, “obtaining a second plurality of medical image data corresponding to a second plurality of individuals based on the second plurality of individuals being identified as candidates for administering of a medical treatment; and generating a plurality of adverse reaction prediction data for the second plurality of individuals based on utilizing artificial intelligence to perform the image-based adverse reaction prediction function upon each of the second plurality of medical image data to generate corresponding adverse reaction prediction data of the plurality of adverse reaction prediction data”, “based on: resampling a plurality of three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography scan volumes included in second plurality of medical image data to a fixed voxel size”, “extracting imaging features along axial, sagittal, and coronal directions”, “processing the plurality of 3D organ box data encapsulating the organ of interest for each 3D CT scan volume via a 3D convolutional neural network to generate the adverse reaction prediction data”, “wherein the plurality of adverse reaction prediction data is processed to partition the second plurality of individuals into a first proper subset of the second plurality of individuals and a second proper subset of the second plurality of individuals, wherein the first proper subset of individuals includes first ones of the second plurality of individuals with corresponding adverse reaction prediction data indicating administering of the medical treatment is safe, and wherein the second proper subset of individuals includes second ones of the second plurality of individuals with corresponding adverse reaction prediction data indicating administering of the medical treatment is unsafe”
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process and mathematical concepts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including a “processor”, “memory”, “generating a plurality of 3D organ box data based on generating, for each 3D CT scan volume, a corresponding 3D organ box encapsulating an organ of interest based on: applying at least one segmentation mask to exclude features outside of the organ of interest”, which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “processor” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims recite the additional element of “obtaining a second plurality of medical image data corresponding to a second plurality of individuals based on the second plurality of individuals being identified as candidates for administering of a medical treatment”, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
Paragraph 143 recite “The computing devices or servers 105, 115, 120, 130, 135 can be various devices including personal computers, laptop computers, netbook computers, tablets, mobile phones, e-readers, phablets, or other computing devices and can communicate via various devices such as digital subscriber line (DSL) modems, data over coax service interface specification (DOCSIS) modems or other cable modems, a wireless modem such as a 4G, 5G, or higher generation modem, an optical modem and/or other access devices. Communications network 125 can include wired, optical and/or wireless links and the network elements can include service switching points, signal transfer points, service control points, network gateways, media distribution hubs, servers, firewalls, routers, edge devices, switches and other network nodes for routing and controlling communications traffic over wired, optical and wireless links as part of the Internet and other public networks as well as one or more private networks, for managing subscriber access, for billing and network management and for supporting other network functions”.
The claims recite the additional element of “obtaining a second plurality of medical image data corresponding to a second plurality of individuals based on the second plurality of individuals being identified as candidates for administering of a medical treatment”, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-18, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein. Additionally, the devices mentioned in dependents claim are used as input devices.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights