DETAILED ACTION Notice of 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. Claims 1-1 4 are pending in this application. 2. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 3. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Claims 1-13 recite the limitations, “ an acquisition unit configured to sequentially acquire image information”, “ a priority setting unit configured to dynamically set a priority of processing ”, “ a processing unit configured to determine a processing amount ”, “ a generation unit configured to generate integrated image Information ” and “ a display unit configured to display an integrated image ”. Limitations are depicted in fig. 2 and the description thereof. . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. 4 . Claim(s) 1- 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The claim(s) recite(s) FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT a system (device or method) for managing medical images by processing image(s) from patient(s) and integrating the images to be displayed and setting priorities. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory) . With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas: Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations ; Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion ). The FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" method in claim FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1 (and FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" the computer system and computer program product in claim(s) 8 and 15 ) comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea. Regarding Claim(s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1 , 13 and 14 : the claims recites the steps (functions) of: Acquiring setting for each patient ( similar to a mental process of including receiving, observation and evaluation data , and can be done mentally in the human mind; similar to recognizing an acquired image on a gas station sign for example); prior ity setting to image(s) ( similar to a mental process including observation of an image , evaluating of an image, and setting the priority based on an evaluation or analysis) , a processing to de te rmine a processing amount ( similar to a mental process of including , observation and evaluation data , and can be done mentally in the human mind; similar to selecting a part of an image for processing or evaluation ) ; a generating integrated image information ( similar to a mental process of including , observation and evaluation data , and can be done mentally in the human mind; similar to selecting images in a piece of paper and putting them together); and displaying the integrated image ( similar to a mental process of including , putting images into a piece of paper for displaying) These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M] ental processes[ ] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook , 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person could mentally analyze an image , prioritizing the image based on information and integrating the images for displaying, either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a device/in a device (e.g. processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims 1.13 and 14 recite a mental process. STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ? FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" NO , the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application: an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and an additional element applies or uses 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. While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application: an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. 5 . Claim(s) 2- 12 does/ do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application . Claim(s) 2-12 and recite(s) the further limitations of: The limitations such as: FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" setting priority by a user, analyzing the result, setting status, setting priority based on voice data, vital data, order data, based on different programs, data amount basis of the order, and manual or automatic priority setting ( similar to a mental process of including receiving, observation and evaluation data , and can be done mentally in the human mind; similar to evaluating the image and selecting priority based on different parameters that can be applied to the images to set priority that can be done mentally or in a piece of paper). These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. F urther, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. 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. STEP 2B: Do claims 2-12 recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" NO , the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements: adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present. Claim(s) 1-14 does/do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a computer to perform FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" “receiving, determining, and causing” , as claimed in Claim(s) 1 -14 is a routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers. Thus, since Claim(s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1 -14 is/ are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that Claim(s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1 -14 is/ are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101. Furthermore, claims 1-1 4 lack an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. There are no additional elements claimed with the exception, both individually and as an ordered combination, to ensure that the claims describe a product or process that applies the exception in a meaningful way. The claims do not include additional elements amount to significantly more in terms of improving functionalities of a computer/device itself, improving another technology or technical field, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconv entional steps that confine claim to a pa rticular useful application or by use of a particular machine that is unconventional. In conclusion, the claims 1-1 4 do not comply with the current standards for patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 10 2 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. 6 1066. . Claims 1- 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by TAKEI ( 2020/0160517). Regarding claim 1 , TAKEI teaches a medical management system (FIGS 1-2 AND P[0024]) comprising: a n acquisition unit (21) configured to sequentially acquire image information for each patient ( e.g. medical records are received for different patients, see fig. 9 ) ; a priority setting unit (23) configured to dynamically set a priority of processing for the image information for each patient (e.g. medical records are received and different priority is set for every patient, see fig. 9 ) ; a processing unit (11) configured to determine a processing amount for each piece of the image information on a basis of the priority and perform the processing on the image information for each patient on a basis of the processing amount determined for each piece of the image information ( reads on figs. 1-5 and p[0023-0026], different parts of the body of a patient are analyze and process with different diagnostic such as CT device or MRI device ) ; a generation unit configured to generate integrated image information by integrating image information for each patient for which the processing has been performed ( reads on p[0012,0026-0028 and/or 0051], different images can be displayed together to be anal yz ed for each patient, each patient can have different images from different diagnostic devices (e.g. CT or MRI) ) ; and a display unit configured to display an integrated image on a basis of the integrated image information ( reads on p[0012,0026-0028 and/or 0051], different images for each patient can be displayed together ) . Regarding claim 2 , TAKEI further teaches wherein the priority setting unit sets the priority on a basis of user's selection ( inherently reads on highest priority to a user with serious condition ). Regarding claim 3 , TAKEI further teaches wherein the priority setting unit analyzes the image information for each patient and sets the priority on a basis of an analysis result ( reads on fig. 3 and p[ 0044] ) Regarding claim 4 , TAKEI further teaches wherein the priority setting unit determines a status for each patient on a basis of the image information for each patient (reads on p [ 0006-0007]). Regarding claim 5 , TAKEI further teaches wherein the priority setting unit sets the priority on a basis of voice data of a medical worker for the patient ( inherently reads on the Doctor or person making the judgement as to the situation of the patient that can send an email or message by phone) . Regarding claim 6 , TAKEI further teaches wherein the priority setting unit sets the priority on a basis of vital data for each patient ( inherently reads on highest priority to a user with serious condition or vital sign(s) such as heart condition ). . Regarding claim 7 , TAKEI further teaches wherein the priority setting unit sets the priority on the basis of order data of the patient ( reads on fig . 4 and p[ 0031-0032 ] ) . Regarding claim 8 , TAKEI further teaches wherein the processing unit changes a number of processing programs for at least one piece of the image information of the image information for each patient on a basis of the priority ( inherently reads on giving or changing the priority to a user with serious condition or vital sign(s) such as heart condition ). . Regarding claim 9 , TAKEI further teaches wherein the processing unit changes a data amount of at least one piece of the image information of the image information for each patient on a basis of the priority ( inherently reads on giving or changing the priority to a user with serious condition or vital sign(s) such as heart condition ). . Regarding claim 10 , TAKEI further teaches wherein the processing unit changes a communication bandwidth of at least one piece of the image information of the image information for each patient on a basis of the priority ( inherently reads on p[ 0012,0026-0028 and/or 0051], the different devices can have different communication bandwidths (e.g. CT or MRI) ) . Regarding claim 11 , TAKEI further teaches wherein the priority setting unit preferentially executes manual priority setting in a case where executing manual priority setting in which the priority is set on a basis of selection of a user and automatic priority setting in which image information for each patient is analyzed and the priority is set on a basis of an analysis result ( inherently reads on the Doctor or person making the judgement as to the situation of the patient that can make the selection manually or automatically based on the analy zing the medical images to determine priority ). . Regarding claim 12 , TAKEI further teaches wherein the priority setting unit notifies an image recommended to execute the automatic priority setting from the integrated images in a case where manual priority setting is preferentially executed ( inherently reads on setting the priority in case a user with serious condition ( preferential) or vital sign(s) such as heart condition ). Regarding c laims 13-14, the limitations of claims 13-14 are covered by the limitations of claim 1 abov e. Conclusion 7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tamura et al. (2023/04140069) teaches a medical support system for displaying images simultaneously. Yamaguchi et al. (2021/0297649) an image data output to acquire plural partial images with different angles. 8 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gabriel I. Garcia whose telephone number is (571) 272-7434 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Benny Tieu can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-7490 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000 /Gabriel I Garcia/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682 November 10 , 2025