CTNF 18/632,370 CTNF 82717 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Notice to Applicant Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 14, 2026 has been entered. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-11 are amended. Now, claims 1-11 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-11 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. Claims 1-11 are directed to managing medical professional workflow, which is managing human behaviors. Managing human behaviors fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). Under step 1 of the Alice / Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-8 recite an apparatus comprising a communication interface, memory and processing circuitry. Claim 9 recites a method comprising at least one step. Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium. Claim 11 recites a system comprising a terminal apparatus and graphical user interface. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, apparatus, manufacture). Under step 2A of the Alice / Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth an apparatus, in the following limitations: storing registration information with identification information that identifies at least one of an ability and an authority of an operator; Monitor progress of a medical-related workflow performed by the one or more medical apparatuses, detect, in the medical-related workflow, an occurrence of an event that requires an operation by an operator, select, based on the detected event and the identification information included in the registration information, one or more terminal apparatuses operated by one or more operators able to respond to the detected event, notify of the occurrence of the event, in response to receiving a response from provide performing an operation on the event, and stop the notification and monitor an operation on the event via the operation screen and perform a subsequent process in the medical-related workflow. The above-recited limitations establish a workplan for an operator to perform an event, i.e. imaging/x-rays. This arrangement amounts to managing human behavior. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)). Claim 1 does recite additional elements: a communication interface configured to communicate with one or more terminal apparatuses and one or more medical apparatuses connected to a network; a memory in which each of the terminal apparatuses is associated with operating the terminal apparatus; and processing circuitry via the communication interface, via a terminal apparatus the selected one or more terminal apparatuses a first terminal apparatus among the selected one or more terminal apparatuses, via the communication interface, the first terminal apparatus with an operation screen for to a second terminal apparatus among the selected one or more terminal apparatuses, the second terminal apparatus being different from the first terminal apparatus. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“a communication interface configured to communicate with one or more terminal apparatuses and one or more medical apparatuses connected to a network”; “a memory in which each of the terminal apparatuses is associated with operating the terminal apparatus”; and “processing circuitry”; “ via the communication interface”; “via a terminal apparatus”; “the selected one or more terminal apparatuses”; “a first terminal apparatus among the selected one or more terminal apparatuses”; “via the communication interface, the first terminal apparatus with an operation screen for”; “to a second terminal apparatus among the selected one or more terminal apparatuses, the second terminal apparatus being different from the first terminal apparatus” ) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (communicating, storing, monitoring, detecting, selecting, notifying, receiving, and monitoring). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 28-30, 32-33, 56, and 95-97 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea. Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent. Independent Claims 9-11 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons. Dependent Claims Each of these steps of the dependent claims 2-8 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claim 1 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner. Regarding Claim 2 Claim 2 sets forth: …information on details of the event. Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea establish a workplan for an operator to perform an event, i.e. imaging/x-rays. While the claim does set forth the additional limitation of “processing circuitry is further configured to cause the first terminal apparatus to display”, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA 3. Applicant's arguments filed M ay 14, 2026 h ave been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A. Applicant argues that claim 1 is directed to an improvement to existing technology and integrates any reported abstract ideas into a practical application and recites significantly more than an abstract idea. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. After determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.04{d) - Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application). The court has provided limitations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application and limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I) — Relevant Considerations for Evaluating Whether Additional Elements integrate a Judicial Exception into a Practical Application). The use of a communication interface, a memory, processing circuitry, one or more terminal apparatuses connected to a network, one or more medical apparatuses connected to a network, and one or more terminal apparatuses, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a medical image diagnostic apparatus configured to perform a scan of a patient; the medical information processing apparatus, and graphical user interface are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”). Here the instant claims seem more analogous to "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Further, Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible. The additional elements merely amount to an application of an abstract idea to a generic technological environment. Accordingly, the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible. Questions of preemption are inherent in the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (incorporated in the 2014 IEG as Steps 2A and 2B), and are resolved by using this framework to distinguish between preemptive claims, and "those that integrate the building blocks into something more.. the latter pose no comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible". This framework found that the claims do tie up the exception. (See the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above). Further, in order for an alleged application of an abstract idea to be considered eligible, it must amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e., pass step 2B of the Mayo test). As shown in the rejection above, the application of the abstract idea recited merely applies the idea in a generic computer environment (“a communication interface configured to communicate with one or more terminal apparatuses and one or more medical apparatuses connected to a network”; “a memory in which each of the terminal apparatuses is associated with operating the terminal apparatus”; and “processing circuitry”; “ via the communication interface”; “via a terminal apparatus”; “the selected one or more terminal apparatuses”; “a first terminal apparatus among the selected one or more terminal apparatuses”; “via the communication interface, the first terminal apparatus with an operation screen for”; “to a second terminal apparatus among the selected one or more terminal apparatuses, the second terminal apparatus being different from the first terminal apparatus” ) using generic computer functions (communicating, storing, monitoring, detecting, selecting, notifying, receiving, and monitoring). Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, the claims do not recite additional limitations that integrate the exception into a Practical Application, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible. Accordingly, the claims do not recite additional limitations that integrate the exception into a Practical Application, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible. B. Applicant argues that the steps recited in amended claim 1 cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, i.e. the claims are directed to methods of organizing human activity. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained with regard to the claims being found to fall under certain methods of organizing human activity . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Information record infrastructure, system and method (US 20020010679 A1) teaches maintaining electronic medical records, comprising the steps of receiving a medical transaction record, encrypted with an encryption key relating to a patient association of the file, accessing the encrypted medical transaction record according to a patient association; and further encrypting the encrypted accessed medical transaction record with an encryption key associated with an intended recipient of the medical record. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBER ALTSCHUL MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM. 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, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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. /AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/632,370 Page 2 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/632,370 Page 3 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/632,370 Page 4 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/632,370 Page 5 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/632,370 Page 6 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/632,370 Page 7 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/632,370 Page 8 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/632,370 Page 9 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/632,370 Page 10 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/632,370 Page 11 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/632,370 Page 12 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/632,370 Page 13 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/632,370 Page 14 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/632,370 Page 15 Art Unit: 3682
Prosecution Insights