DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/13/2024.
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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
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.
The following title is suggested:
Displaying and Distinguishing Patient Examination Information
Claims Status
Claims 1-10 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1, 9 and 10 are independent.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative independent claim 1 recite(s) the performing of the following steps/functions: display a plurality of examinations of a same patient and different patients, specifies one examination from the plurality of examinations displayed, display a list of imaging order information corresponding to the specified one examination and imaging order information corresponding to another examination of the same patient as the one examination, and display the imaging order information corresponding to the specified one examination so as to be distinguishable from the imaging order information corresponding to the other examination. The claim falls into the category of "certain methods of organizing human activity" or a "mental process". The core of the claim is an instruction to collect, organize, and display information (patient examinations and imaging order information) in a specific, distinguishable manner for a user to review and compare. The claimed steps can be performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper (displaying lists, specifying an examination, displaying related information, making information distinguishable).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of an apparatus’s "hardware processor" and "display" are not indicative of an integration into a practical application. Here, these limitations involve generic computer components mentioned at a high-level of specificity and are reflective of mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or that merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). They do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea or improve the technical functioning of the computer itself.
The claim does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or that merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, cannot provide a practical applicant nor significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 1 is ineligible under 101.
Independent Claims 9-10 are directed to similar subject matter and are also ineligible for similar reason(s).
Claims 2 and 4-8 further recites the abstract idea with generic computer component(s), and are ineligible for similar reasons.
Claim 3 recites the abstract idea with generic computer component(s). It also includes the additional limitation of “in response to a transition from the first screen to the second screen”, which isn’t abstract, but isn’t indicative of integration into a practical application because. This limitation is reflective of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Transitioning from one screen to another is not significantly more than the abstract idea because it was well understood, routine, conventional computer activity. For example, see Moriyasu; Takayoshi et al. (US 20190113358 A1), ¶ 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi; Naoki (hereinafter Hayashi – US 20150117607 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Hayashi teaches:
A medical imaging control apparatus comprising a hardware processor that:
causes a display to display a plurality of examinations of a same patient and different patients; (display of plurality of examinations of a same patient, see fig. 10. Furthermore, although fig. 10 doesn’t display the examinations of the same patients and different patients, it is interpreted that the console is configured to displays the examinations of different patients as well, because there are orders of same and different patients stored in the stored in the order information storage member 59, fig. 9 and ¶¶ 96 and 141. The imaging order information includes supplementary information, such as imaging order ID [examination identification information], patient ID, etc., ¶ 93 and figs. 9-10. Herein, it is broadly interpreted that “examinations” include pending examinations, such as those reflected in the “imaging to be performed” list in fig. 10. Herein, it is broadly interpreted that "causes a display to display a plurality of examinations of a same patient and different patients" does not necessarily require their simultaneous display because the word "and" does not inherently impose a temporal restriction.)
specifies one examination from the plurality of examinations displayed on the display; (if a plurality of examinations have been selected, ¶ 98 and fig. 10, a first examination is selected by the console as a first focus examination [specifies one examination], as reflected by button and cursor in figs. 10-11. e.g., based on the order of registration of pieces, namely, in order of IDs P1, ¶ 107 and fig. 10. Herein, it is broadly interpreted that “specifies one examination from the plurality of examinations” includes the specifying of one or more examinations)
causes the display to display a list of imaging order information corresponding to the specified one examination (the display is modified to display the “imaging order information”, here the first focus on the list is being displayed enclosed within a border/frame, fig. 11 and ¶¶ 102 and 104. This list include imaging order information, such as imaging portion P7 and imaging direction P8, ¶ 93 and fig. 9. Herein “imaging order information” is interpreted as including information such as “imaging direction(s)” or other instructions for the imaging staff [such as radiologist] to following during the imaging process)
and imaging order information corresponding to another examination of the same patient as the one examination; (the display also list the other imaging order information, listed frame-enclosed first focus, fig. 11 and ¶¶ 102 and 104.)
and causes the display to display the imaging order information corresponding to the specified one examination so as to be distinguishable from the imaging order information corresponding to the other examination. (because the selected imaging order information is frame-enclosed, it is distinguishable from the other information, fig. 11 and ¶¶ 102 and 104.)
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hayashi further teaches:
wherein the hardware processor causes the display to display the imaging order information corresponding to the one examination in a manner different from the imaging order information corresponding to the other examination. (because the focused imaging order information is frame-enclosed, it is distinguishable, i.e., displayed in a manner different from the imaging order information corresponding to the other examination, from the other information, fig. 11 and ¶¶ 102 and 104.)
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hayashi further teaches:
wherein:
the hardware processor causes the plurality of examinations to be displayed on a first screen; (see fig. 10 and ¶ 34, first screen)
the hardware processor causes the imaging order information corresponding to the one examination and the imaging order information corresponding to the other examination to be displayed in list form on a second screen; (see fig. 11 and ¶ 35, first screen)
and the hardware processor, in response to a transition from the first screen to the second screen, causes the display to display at least one piece of imaging order information corresponding to the one examination so as to be distinguishable as being the imaging order information corresponding to the specified one examination. (when the screen in fig. 10 transitions to fig. 11, the focused examination is distinguished as reflected in fig. 11)
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hayashi further teaches:
further comprising a storage storing supplementary information pertaining to the plurality of examinations. (storage member 59, ¶ 87 and fig. 8, in which the imaging order information has been registered/input and stored, ¶¶ 96 and 141. The imaging order information includes supplementary information, such as imaging order ID [examination identification information], patient ID, etc., ¶ 93 and figs. 9-10)
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Hayashi further teaches:
wherein the supplementary information is at least one of the following:
patient-specifying information, an imaging area, examination identification information, an examination reception number, an examination registration date, an examination reservation date, and an imaging procedure. (the displayed information is associated with a number of supplementary information, such as imaging order ID [examination identification information], patient ID, etc., ¶ 93 and figs. 9-10)
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Hayashi further teaches:
wherein the hardware processor causes the display to display at least one piece of imaging order information corresponding to the one examination so as to be distinguishable as being the imaging order information corresponding to the specified one examination, on the basis of the supplementary information. (the icons I, including the first icon, which is distinguishable, are arranged in the order of the "Imaging Order IDs" P1 [on the basis of the supplementary information] (see FIG. 10, etc.), ¶¶ 102 and 104)
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hayashi further teaches:
further comprising an operation acceptor that accepts an operation of selecting the one examination from the plurality of examinations, wherein the hardware processor specifies the one examination on the basis of the operation of the operation acceptor. (based on a selection of a button H12 to the left of the examination, after the user clicks on the enter button H13 [an operation acceptor that accepts an operation], the display changes as reflected in fig. 11, ¶¶ 98-99 and fig. 10)
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Hayashi further teaches:
wherein the hardware processor specifies the one examination from the plurality of examinations on the basis of the supplementary information. (the icons I, including the first icon, which is distinguishable and corresponds to order ID 001, are arranged in the order of the "Imaging Order IDs" P1 [on the basis of the supplementary information] (see FIG. 10, etc.), ¶¶ 102 and 104)
Independent Claims 9 and 10:
Claims 9 and 10 are directed to a system and method for accomplishing the functions of the apparatus of in claim 1, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Shiibashi, Takao et al. US 20040240624 A1, is pertinent to a potential amendment to claim 1 for disclosing “simultaneously” displaying examinations of different patients (¶ 272 and figs. 15 and 17).
Sasano; Yasuhiko US 20090175417 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a medical information processing device and in particular, a medical information processing device to display a medical image generated by an image generation device based on examination order information and supplementary information, so that an image examiner may confirm and modify the medical image and the supplementary information thereof, ¶ 1 and figs. 4 and 7.
Moriyasu; Takayoshi et al. (US 20190113358 A1), is pertinent to claim 3 for disclosing that the concept of transitioning from one screen to another was well understood, routine, conventional computer activity, ¶ 19.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171