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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/06/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to applicant arguments filled on 02/06/2026 for application 18/587883.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 16 have been amended.
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 display after acquiring the set of medical imaging data and during the medical imaging examination procedure on a patient, a new patient access account prompt to initiate creation of the patient access account and ; 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; receiving 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; 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.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues the 101 rejection. The applicant argues that the arguments over came the 101 rejection associated with the parent claims which is similar to the pending case. The Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant’s reliance on the parent applicant’s eligibility determination is not persuasive. Each application is examined on its own merits, and a prior determination in a related application is not binding with respect to the claims currently before the Office. The present claims have been analyzed independently under 101 and remain ineligible for the reasons discussed above.
The Applicant argues that the claims provide a very specific temporal parameters around the creation of a patient access account. The Applicant submits that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Creating an account during examination is still directed to an abstract idea of organizing human activity.
The Applicant argues that the claims are analogous to claim 1 of Example 42. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The current claims are not analogous to claim 1 of Example 42, where the claims solved a technical problem. Example 42, the claims were found eligible because the additional elements provided a specific technological improvement to the manner in which patient information from disparate formats was standardized, updated, and communicated among remote users. The present claims do no recite a comparable improvement to computer functionality or another technology. Rather, the claimed computer components are used as tools to facilitated the creation and management of patient records during a medical examination.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claimed temporal limitations is not persuasive. While the claims recite that account initiation and creation occur during an examination and after receipt of patient images, such limitations merely specify the timing and sequence of information collection and record creation. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, image processing system, database or other technology. Rather, the claimed computer components are used as tools to implement a patient record creation and management workflow, with the recited temporal limitations defining when certain information processing activities occur within that workflow.
Other applicant arguments simply rehash issues addressed above or addressed in the 101 rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hammack et al (US 2018/0096167 A1). Teaches creating a user account and wherein can access his or her personal health record. Dalforno et al. (US 2017/0185953) teaches “ If an account is not found in the database 137G with a matching phone number, the patient is classified as a new patient that is not already registered at server 130 and/or database 137G, in which case the server 130 may, at 322 create a new account for the patient to enable patient ordering”. The prior art made of record fail to teach “display on the interface, after acquiring the set of medical imaging data and during the medical imaging examination procedure on a patient, a new patient-access account prompt to initiate creation of the patient-access account, 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 procedure”
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