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
This action is in response to applicant arguments filled on 08/07/2025 for application 18/587883.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Step 1:
Claims 1-20 are drawn to a method and system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1 and 10 recite initiating the creation of the patient access account. The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity by identifying and reporting events (i.e. creating a user account) preceding a pattern in a set of user data. 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).
Step 2A Prong Two:
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 and an interface, which are additional element that is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims recite the additional element of acquiring a set of medical imaging data; displaying information and receive a patient identifier, which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that do not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed receiving and displaying limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea of identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
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 32, where “The system includes a storage component and a processor. The storage component is operable to store patient account data associated with each user account of one or more user accounts on the medical imaging system. The processor is operable to: acquire a set of medical imaging data during the medical imaging examination, the set of medical imaging data being acquired in association with a logged-in medical professional account on the medical imaging system; display a new patient account prompt to initiate creation of the patient account; receive a patient identifier to initiate the creation of the patient account; and use the patient identifier to initiate the creation of the patient account, the patient account to be used for accessing at least a portion of the set of medical imaging data acquired during the medical imaging examination.”
Paragraph 49, where “The computing devices 110 and 140 may be a multi-use electronic display device such as a smartphone, tablet computer, laptop computer, desktop computer, or other suitable display device. In various embodiments, the computing devices 110 and 140 may be provided with an input component capable of receiving user input and an output component, such as a display screen, capable of displaying various data. For example, the input component of computing devices 110 and 140 may include a touch interface layered on top of the display screen of the output component. Computing devices 110 and 140 may also include memory, Random Access Memory (RAM), Read Only Memory (ROM), and persistent storage device, which may all be connected to a bus to allow for communication therebetween and with one or more processors. Any number of these memory elements may store software and/or firmware that may be accessed and executed by the one or more processors to perform the methods and/or provide the user interfaces described herein as being performed by or provided on the computing devices 110 and 140. The computing devices 110 and 140 may also include various components for facilitating electronic communication with other devices, such as the medical imaging device 102 or the server 130. The computing devices 110 and 140 may be the same or different type of computing device.”
The claims recite the additional element of acquiring a set of medical of imaging data; displaying information; and receiving a patient identifier, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering and displaying. 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) 2-9 and 11-20 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2016/0170636 A1) in view of Robaina et al. (US 2018/0197624 A1).
In claim 1, a method for initiating creation of a patient-access account on a medical imaging system during a medical imaging examination, the method comprising operating a processor to:
Lee teaches:
- acquire a set of medical imaging data during the medical imaging examination, the set of medical imaging data being acquired in association with a logged-in medical professional account on the medical imaging system and displayed on an interface operable by the logged-in medical professional ( Fig. 2 and Para. 63, 71 and 72);
- display on the interface, after acquiring the set of medical imaging data and prior to completion of the medical imaging examination, a new patient-access account prompt to initiate creation of the patient-access account (Fig. 2 and Para. 63, 71, and 72).
Lee does not explicitly teach however Robaina teaches:
the patient-access account being for the patient to access at least a portion of the set of medical imaging data acquired during the medical imaging examination (Para. 129 wherein setting patient access level is taught);
Lee further teaches:
- receive, via the new patient-access account prompt, a patient identifier to initiate the creation of the patient-access account on the medical imaging system (para. 19 and 55); and
- use the patient identifier to initiate the creation of the patient-access account (Para. 16, 19, and Fig. 2b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to combine the method and apparatus for inputting information including adding new patient accounts as taught in Lee with the medical assistant that can create access levels to patient medical data including image information as taught in Robaina. The well-known elements described are merely a combination of old elements, and in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Lee teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the new patient-access account prompt is displayed while the medical professional account remains logged in on the medical imaging system (Fig. 2).
As per claim 3, Lee in view of Robaina teaches the method of claim 1. Lee does not explicitly teach however Robaina teaches, wherein using the patient identifier to initiate the creation of the patient-access account comprises operating the processor to:
- initiate the creation of the patient-access account as a subsidiary account of the medical professional account, the subsidiary account being assigned a lower access level to medical data accessible via the medical imaging system than an access level assigned to the medical professional account (Para. 166 wherein access levels can be assigned). The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 1.
As per claim 4, Lee in view of Robaina teaches the method of claim 1. Lee does not explicitly teach however Robaina teaches the method of claim 1, wherein after completion of the medical imaging examination, operating the processor to:
- use the patient identifier to request a patient access approval prior to granting access to the at least a portion of the set of medical imaging data acquired during the medical imaging examination (Para. 165-166). The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 1.
As per claim 5, Lee in view of Robaina teaches the method of claim 1. Lee does not explicitly teach however Robaina teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the patient identifier comprises a contact data and the method further comprises operating the processor to, after the initiation of the creation of the patient-access account during the medical imaging examination, transmit a patient-access account link using the contact data (Para. 244). The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 1.
As per claim 6, Lee in view of Robaina teaches the method of claim 1. Lee does not explicitly teach however Robaina teaches the method of claim 5, wherein transmitting the patient-access account link comprises operating the processor to transmit a patient-access account completion link that is usable to enable completing the creation of the patient-access account on the medical imaging system (Para. 244). The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 1.
As per claim 7, Lee in view of Robaina teaches the method of claim 1. Lee does not explicitly teach however Robaina teaches the method of claim 5, wherein transmitting the patient-access account link comprises operating the processor to transmit a patient-access account access link that enables the patient to access the set of medical imaging data acquired during the medical imaging examination (Para. 166-167, and 244). The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 1.
As per claim 8, Lee teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising operating the processor to:
- determine whether the patient-access account is associated with the logged-in medical professional account on the medical imaging system (Para. 65 and 204); and
- display a new professional association prompt to initiate an account link between the patient-access account and the medical professional account when the patient-access account is not associated with the logged-in medical professional account on the medical imaging system (Fig. 2 and Para. 65 and 204).
As per claim 9, Lee in view of Robaina teaches the method of claim 1. Lee does not explicitly teach however Robaina teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the new patient-access account prompt comprises a new patient-access account interface having a patient identifier field for receiving the patient identifier (Para. 189). The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 1.
Claims 10-20 recite substantially similar limitations as seen above and hence are rejected for similar rationale as noted above.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues the art rejection. The Applicant states that the pending claims recite a new patient-access account prompt to initiate creation of the patient access account is displayed while the patient is present with the logged in medical professional, prior to completion of the examination, which addresses core security and validation requirements (i.e., the professional knows the patient under examination, who is before him/her). The subsequent patient identifier then initiates the creation of the patient-access account on the medical imaging system which reduces the account-creation burden on the patient. Nothing close to this is taught, suggested or inferred in either Lee or Robaina. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nothing in the claims states that the patient has to be live Infront of the logged in professional. The claims state the new patient access account prompt is initiated after receiving medical image data and before the completion of the medical examination. In other words, a medical professional can receive medical images…at some point in the future a prompt to create a patient account is initiated to a medical professional (not necessarily the same medical professional), and this prompt happens prior to the completion of the medical examination. The examiner notes it is not clear what the “completion” of the medical examination looks like. Is the medical examination completed once the patient leaves the office or is the medical examination completed at a later time once the patient is done with all of his examination with the medical professional.
The Applicant argues the 101 rejection. The Applicant states that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. The pending claims are analogous to example 27, claim 15 in the 2014 eligibility guidance. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The pending claims are not analogous to claim 15 where initializing a local computer system using BIOS code stored at a remote memory location, by triggering the processor to transfer BIOS code between two memory locations upon a powering up of the computer and transferring control of the processor operations to the BIOS code.
The Applicant argues that the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems, namely improvements that allow the creation of a patient access account on a medical imaging system (enabled by an already logged in medical professional with an account on the medical imaging system), via receipt of a prompt on the interface, after acquiring the set of medical imaging data and prior to completion of the medical imaging examination, such a new patient access account prompt allowing the creation of the patient access account. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the art rejection above, the Applicant seems to be arguing elements that are narrower then what is recited in the claims.
Other applicant arguments simply rehash issues addressed in the 101 rejection or how the claims are being interpreted.
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 MAROUN P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
MAROUN P. KANAAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/MAROUN P KANAAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights