DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claim 1, The claim recites identifying at least one region of interest (ROI) in the image based on one or more tissue characteristics associated with ROI. Defining a query image as a subset of the image of breast tissue including the ROI. Retrieving a hierarchy of lesion data including a plurality of images of breast tissue, the hierarchy being formed based on one or more relationships among the plurality of images. Positioning the query image within the hierarchy of lesion data based on the one or more tissue characteristics. Determining a position of the query image within the hierarchy of the lesion database. Identifying one or more neighbor images of the query image from among the plurality of images based on the position. Retrieving statistics associated with the one or more neighbor images.
Identifying at least one region of interest (ROI) in the image based on one or more tissue characteristics associated with ROI, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The language “Identifying” in
the context of this claim encompasses the user visually observing region of interest in the image. Similarly, identifying one or more neighbor images of the query image from among the plurality of images based on the position, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Encompasses visually observing neighbor images of the query images.
Defining a query image as a subset of the image of breast tissue including the ROI, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The language “defining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user detailing or explaining query image as a subset of image including ROI.
Retrieving a hierarchy of lesion data including a plurality of images of breast tissue, the hierarchy being formed based on one or more relationships among the plurality of images, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The language “retrieving” in the context of this claim encompasses the user finding a hierarchy of lesion data in plurality of images. Similarly, retrieving statistics associated with the one or more neighbor images, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Encompasses the user finding statistics associated with neighbor images.
Positioning the query image within the hierarchy of lesion data based on the one or more tissue characteristics, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The language “positioning” in the context of this claim encompasses the user arranging or placing the query image within the hierarchy of lesion data.
Determining a position of the query image within the hierarchy of the lesion database, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The language “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses observing a position of the query image withing the hierarchy of the lesion database.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim
recites additional elements generating analytics associated with the query image based on the statistics; generating a graphic depicting the analytics; and displaying the graphic.
The claims do not recite a particular machine that meaningfully limits the abstract processing. The claims do not recite a transformation of an article to a different state or thing beyond manipulation of image data. The mere manipulation of electronic data is typically considered insignificant extra-solution activity or the abstract idea itself.
The method is described functionally (identifying, positioning, retrieving and determining region of interest of the image) without specifying particular structures, pipeline stages, or constraints that improve the display technology itself. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does 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, the additional element of using insignificant extra solution activity and identifying, position, retrieving determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception without implementing particular machine. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic insignificant extra solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-20 do not change the analysis.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance regarding claim 1.
The limitations of retrieving a hierarchy of lesion data including a plurality of images of breast tissue, the hierarchy being formed based on one or more relationships among the plurality of images; positioning the query image within the hierarchy of lesion data based on the one or more tissue characteristics; determining a position of the query image within the hierarchy of the lesion database; identifying one or more neighbor images of the query image from among the plurality of images based on the position; retrieving statistics associated with the one or more neighbor images; generating analytics associated with the query image based on the statistics. The concept as a whole was not found in the prior art. Examiner notifies the applicant the case would be in condition for allowance should the outstanding Section 101 rejection be overcome.
Related Prior art
Santamaria-Pang et al (8,995,740) hierarchy being formed based on one or more relationships among the plurality of images (note fig. 2, block 208 and col. 10 lines 59-65).
Ben-Ari (10,037,601) identifying at least one region of interest (ROI) in the image based on one or more tissue characteristics associated with ROI (note col. 3 block 308 and col. 19 lines 40-56).
Golden et al (12,183,001) lesion data (note col. 14 lines 10-15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY M DESIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-7449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-3:00pm.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
G.D.
February 20, 2026
/GREGORY M DESIRE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676