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 .
Notice to Applicant
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed March 13, 2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 9-11 have been amended. Claims 4 and 8 have not been modified. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 12 and 13 have been added. Claims 1 and 3-13 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A response is provided below.
Applicant argues 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections, pg. 13 of Remarks:
Regarding A, Applicant argues that the claims are not abstract as the division of the steps into a pre-processing phase and an interaction phase provide a concrete, computer-implemented approach by pre-computing and using lesion-level correspondences. However, dividing steps into separate phases does nothing more than add an organizational grouping label to certain steps. Nothing in the claims indicate that a clinician cannot use manual or mental processes to, in a pre-processing phase, “classify sentences on a per-lesion basis and structure them into a set of descriptions which are natural language texts”, “identify, from the sentences classified on the per-lesion basis, a lesion-indicating character string as a keyword”, “specify descriptions that correspond to each other for the same lesion”, and “generate correspondence information”. Likewise, nothing in the claims also indicates that a clinician cannot use manual or mental processes to “receive,…, designation of a character string” and “display,…, a description of the each of the one or more reference medical document corresponding to a description”.
It is important to note that “certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping” and that the "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Please see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II and III.
Examiner notes that the additional elements of the processor (computing device), display, and input device are analyzed under Prong Two of Step 2A to determine if they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding B, Applicant argues that the claims provide a practical application and provides significantly more by reciting role partitioning, a pre-processing phase, and an interaction phase, which supports user-driven real-time cross-document interaction with high user freedom through free text selection.
Examiner notes that such an improvement provides industrial applicability, but does not provide a practical application as defined by MPEP 2106.04(d). The “architecture” is not a computer architecture. Rather, it is an abstract organization of steps (pre-processing vs interaction) and documents (interaction-target vs reference) through labels, which only serves to describe a workflow process rather than a specific, technical improvement to any of the additional elements of the processor, input device, and/or display.
Examiner suggests identifying a technical problem that was overcome by the inventors that improves the underlying technology rather than improving upon the abstract idea of “compar[ing] a current interpretation report created for a current medical image with a past interpretation report” ([0004] of Applicant specification). Relevant considerations are provided in MPEP 2106.04(d)I.
Applicant argues 35 U.S.C. §102 & 103 Rejections, pg. 15 of Remarks:
Applicant argues that Qian fails to disclose the amended claim limitations, specifically with regards to feature C-F.
Regarding feature C, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Qian does not teach an interaction-target document is the origin of free selection within displayed unstructured text as stated by Applicant, the claim limitation, as amended, does not recite so. Specifically, the amended claim recites “displayed for a user to designate a character string in the interaction-target medical document”, which only describes displaying and does not specify the method by which or even require the designation of a character string. However, Hirakawa is applied to teach the amended claim limitation anyway in the interest of compact prosecution.
Hirakawa does teach such an intended claim limitation ([0110], “In step S16, the character receiving unit 26 determines whether or not there is a designation of a character. Specifically, as an example, the cursor 39 for designating a character by the radiologist is displayed so as to overlap the current image 35, and the radiologist moves the cursor 39 to a desired character by operating the input unit 15. After moving the cursor 39 on the desired character, the radiologist selects the character string 40 of “There is B at part b.” as shown in FIG. 5 by dragging from the left click position, and the character receiving unit 26 receives the selected character string 40 as designated characters.” [0016], “In the medical image processing apparatus according to the invention, the character may include feature information indicating a feature of a lesion.”).
Thus, the combination of the free selection within displayed unstructured text as taught by Hirakawa with the character string classification and matching based on identified keywords with previous documents as taught by Qian teaches the amended claim limitations.
Regarding D, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The two-phase architecture does not describe an actual computer architecture. Rather, it is simply describing labels for a grouping of functions. Thus, if the functions are taught, then the two phases are taught as well.
Regarding E, Examiner respectfully disagrees. [0043] of Applicant specification recites: “The description specifying unit 22 specifies mutually corresponding descriptions included in each of the current interpretation report R1 and the past interpretation report Rpi by associating the sentences regarding the same lesion among the four sentences 30 to 33 obtained by structuring the current interpretation report R1 and the three sentences 40 to 42 obtained by structuring the past interpretation report Rpi. Accordingly, the sentence 30 regarding the nodule of the current interpretation report R1 and the sentence 40 regarding the nodule of the past interpretation report Rpi are specified as corresponding descriptions.” Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation is any information across reports that are regarding the same lesion.
Qian’s descriptors and keywords, which are used to match descriptor-derived keywords in past reports with the current report, are functionally analogous to the correspondence information of the instant application as they are both comprised of character strings that may be used to identify the same lesion across different reports generated at different times. This is supported by [0036] of Qian: “The present system automatically find the prior study 240 that is relevant to the current study 210, and correlate portions of the prior study 240 that match the BIRADS descriptors to the BIRADS descriptors selected from the BIRADS GUI 230 and/or to the current study/images that include annotated BIRADS descriptors.” The BIRADS descriptors function as corresponding information to identify the same lesion across reports (Qian, [0037], “After finding prior reports related to the currently annotated lesion, physicians will compare the progression of the lesion, in terms of size, shape, margin, density etc.” [0038], “The present systems and methods help physicians to perform the above-mentioned tasks by finding suggesting prior studies that are relevant to the selected BIRADS annotation, and by highlighting fragments of sentences relevant to the selected BIRADS annotation. Thus, in the prior example, if the current report or study is a US study of a right breast of a patient, then prior relevant reports are found and suggested, where such prior reports are deemed relevant if they include studies or text related to US studies of the right breast of the patient.”).
With regards to the mention of free-text selection, Hirakawa has been applied to teach the amended limitation, as noted above with regards to Feature C. Thus, combining the free-text selection of Hirakawa with the determination of displayed descriptions using the mutually corresponding descriptions teaches the amended claim limitations.
Regarding F, Examiner agrees with Applicant. Thus, Hirakawa has been applied to teach the amended claim limitations, as noted above with regards to Feature C.
Regarding IV, Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s summarization of the above prior art arguments. Please see the modified 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below.
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 and 3-13 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process and a machine
(claims 1 and 3-13). Accordingly, claims 1 and 3-13 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and /or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP §2106.04(a).
The Examiner has identified apparatus Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis; claim 1 being similar to method claim 10 and device claim 11.
Claim 1:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one processor;
an input device; and
a display,
wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire a plurality of medical documents having different creation times and each being an unstructured natural language text;
wherein the plurality of medical documents includes:
(i) an interaction-target medical document received from the input device and displayed for a user to designate a character string in the interaction-target medical document; and
(ii) one or more reference medical documents, different from the interaction-target medical document, received from a server connected to the information processing apparatus and having creation times different from a creation time of the interaction-target medical document,
the one or more reference medical documents being used as references for the interaction-target medical document;
in a pre-processing phase,
for each of the plurality of medical documents, by natural language processing, classify sentences on aper-lesion basis and structure them into a set of descriptions which are natural language texts;
for each lesion, identify, from the sentences classified on the per-lesion basis, a lesion-indicating character string as a keyword;
based on the set of descriptions classified from the interaction-target medical document and the set of descriptions classified from each of the one or more reference medical documents, specify descriptions that correspond to each other for a same lesion, thereby identifying, for the same lesion, mutually corresponding descriptions contained in the interaction-target medical document and in each of the one or more reference medical documents, using the keyword identified for the lesion;
generate correspondence information indicating, for each lesion, the mutually corresponding descriptions between the interaction-target medical document and each of the one or more reference medical documents;
in an interaction phase,
display the interaction-target medical document on the display;
receive, by the input device, designation of a character string in the interaction-target medical document by selecting within the displayed unstructured natural language text, the character string in the displayed unstructured natural language text of the interaction-target medical document; and
display¸ on the display, in each of the one or more reference medical documents, a description of the each of the one or more reference medical document corresponding to a description including the designated character string in a manner different from other descriptions other than the description corresponding to the description including the designated character string,
wherein the displayed description is determined using the correspondence information and is one of the mutually corresponding descriptions specified for the same lesion, based on a link between (i) the designated character string and (ii) a corresponding description in the one or more reference medical documents.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behaviors of people. The claim elements are directed towards acquiring documents, classifying sentences into natural language texts, generating and identifying mutually corresponding descriptions contained in multiple medical documents, receiving character strings, and displaying a description. These claim limitations are directed towards “compar[ing] a current interpretation report for a current medical image with a past interpretation report” ([0004] of Applicant specification), which is a human activity typically performed by radiologists.
These claims further recite: mental processes. The claims recite elements, underlined above, that can be performed in the mind of a person, with pen and paper, or using a generic computer. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C that teaches generic computer performing an abstract idea can also fall under mental processes. These encompass acquiring documents, classifying sentences into natural language texts, generating and identifying mutually corresponding descriptions contained in multiple medical documents, displaying a medical document, receiving character strings, and displaying a description.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claims 10 and 11 are abstract for similar reasons.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04 (ID)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
Additional elements cited in the claims:
An information processing apparatus (1,3-11); at least one processor (1,3-6,9-11); an input device (1,10,11); a display (1,10,11); server (1,10,11); a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (11); link (13)
Any computing devices that would be able to perform the method and the modules that are used within the computing environment are taught at a high level of generality such that the claim elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using any generic component capable of performing the claim limitations. [0018] of Applicant specification recites: “Each apparatus is a computer on which an application program for causing each apparatus to function as a component of the medical information system 1 is installed.” [0033] further recites: “As shown in Fig. 2, the information processing apparatus 20 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 11, a non-volatile storage 13, and a memory 16 as a temporary storage area.” As no limitation exists on the type of computer, the Examiner asserts that no specific, technical improvements are being made to computing devices as generic devices with software modules are simply being used to perform the abstract idea.
Input devices are also taught at a high level of generality. [0033] of Applicant specification recites: “Further, the information processing apparatus 20 includes a display 14 such as a liquid crystal display, an input device 15 such as a keyboard and a mouse, and a network interface (I/F) 17 connected to the network 10.” No specific, technical improvements are being made to input devices, as any keyboard and mouse can be used to perform the insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving user input.
Displays are also taught at a high level of generality. [0033] of Applicant specification recites: “Further, the information processing apparatus 20 includes a display 14 such as a liquid crystal display, an input device 15 such as a keyboard and a mouse, and a network interface (I/F) 17 connected to the network 10.” No specific, technical improvements are being made to display devices, as any liquid crystal display is used to perform the insignificant extra-solution activity of simply displaying data.
Storage mediums are also taught at a high level of generality. [0049] of Applicant specification recites: “The application program is recorded on a recording medium, such as a digital versatile disc (DVD) or a compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), and distributed, and is installed on the computer from the recording medium.” No specific, technical improvements are being made to the storage devices as any DVD or CD-ROM device is applied to perform the insignificant extra-solution activity of storing data.
The server is also taught at a high level of generality. [0025] of Applicant specification recites: “The image server 5 is a general-purpose computer on which a software program that provides a function of a database management system (DBMS) is installed. The image server 5 comprises a storage in which the image DB 6 is configured. This storage may be a hard disk apparatus connected to the image server 5 by a data bus, or may be a disk apparatus connected to a storage area network (SAN) or a network attached storage (NAS) connected to the network 10. In a case in which the image server 5 receives a request to register a medical image from the imaging apparatus 2, the image server 5 prepares the medical image in a format for a database and registers the medical image in the image DB 6.” No specific technical improvements are made to server devices, as it is only applied to perform the insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data from.
Links are also taught at a high level of generality. [0050] recites: “Accordingly, in a case in which the user uses the input device 15 to click a character string representing a lesion included in the current interpretation report R1, the display controller 23 can display the sentence linked to the clicked character string in the past interpretation report Rpi in a manner different from other sentences other than the linked sentence.” No specific technical improvements are made to hyperlink technologies as they are only applied to perform an abstract idea of linking/associating the related character strings to each other.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID)(A)(2).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 3: This claim recites wherein the processor is configured to: further specify a difference between corresponding descriptions included in each of the plurality of medical documents; and display the difference in a manner different from descriptions other than the difference in the one or more reference medical documents, instead of the description corresponding to the description including the designated character string or in addition to the description corresponding to the description including the designated character string; which is abstract as certain methods of organizing human activity under the managing personal behaviors sub-grouping, as a radiologist is capable of classifying descriptions and specifying mutually corresponding descriptions.
Claim 4: This claim recites wherein the medical document includes a medical image corresponding to the medical document, and the processor is configured to display at least a partial region of the medical image related to the differently displayed description in a manner different from other regions other than the partial region; which serves to further limit the type of medical document. This claim also teaches an insignificant extra-solution activity of simply displaying part of the image.
Claim 5: This claim recites wherein the processor is configured to display character strings related to the mutually corresponding descriptions in the interaction-target medical document in a manner different from other character strings other than the related character strings; which teaches an insignificant extra-solution activity of simply displaying character strings.
Claim 6: This claim recites wherein the processor is configured to display the description including the character string in the interaction-target medical document in a manner different from other descriptions other than the description including the character string; which teaches an insignificant extra-solution activity of simply displaying descriptions.
Claim 7: This claim recites wherein the interaction-target medical document is a medical document currently being created; which serves to further limit the type of medical document.
Claim 8: This claim recites wherein the plurality of medical documents include medical documents acquired by different modalities at least in part; which serves to further limit the type of medical document.
Claim 9: This claim recites wherein the processor is configured to, in a case in which a plurality of the reference medical documents are displayed, preferentially display the description in the different manner for the reference medical document whose creation time is closer to the interaction-target medical document; which teaches an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activities as introducing a preference in the display arrangement or order.
Claim 12: This claim recites wherein, in the interaction phase, the processor monitors a user designation of a character string in the interaction-target medical document, and, in response to the user designation, causes the corresponding description in the reference medical document to be displayed in the manner different from the other descriptions; which teaches an abstract idea of monitoring a user’s interaction with a medical document and presenting information in a different manner.
Claim 13: This claim recites wherein the processor assigns, to the designated character string or to the keyword identified for the lesion, a link to the corresponding description in at least one reference medical document, and the displayed description is determined based on the link; which teaches hyperlink technologies at a high level of generality, such that they are only applied to perform an abstract idea of connecting information in two documents together.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
Amount to elements that have been recognized as activities in particular fields (such as Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(i);storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 3-9 and 12-13 additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as activities in particular fields, claims 3-9 and 12-13, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(ii); claims 3-9 and 12-13, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(iv). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1 and 3-13 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian (US 20140149407) further in view of Hirakawa (US 20190279408).
Regarding claim 1, Qian teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one processor ([0077], “The program and/or program portions contained in the memory 1020 configure the processor 1010 to implement the methods, operational acts, and functions disclosed herein.”);
an input device ([0032], “A common interface device for a user interface (UI), such as a graphical user interface (GUI) is a mouse, trackball, keyboard, touch-sensitive display, a pointing device (e.g., a pen), etc.”); and
a display ([0032], “A common interface device for a user interface (UI), such as a graphical user interface (GUI) is a mouse, trackball, keyboard, touch-sensitive display, a pointing device (e.g., a pen), etc.”),
wherein the processor is configured to ([0077], “The program and/or program portions contained in the memory 1020 configure the processor 1010 to implement the methods, operational acts, and functions disclosed herein.”):
acquire a plurality of medical documents having different creation times and each being an unstructured natural language text ([0034], “FIG. 2A shows a view 200 of reports that are automatically correlated and concurrently displayed according to one embodiment of the present systems and methods. As shown in FIG. 2A, in one current study 210 (also referred to as a reference study) shown on the right side of FIG. 2A.” [0035], “the reference study 210 will be referred to as the BIRADS study, but it should be understood that the reference study 210 may be any desired and/or selected study to be compared to different related and/or selected studies, referred to herein as prior studies. On the left side of FIG. 2A, a text report 240 of one prior study in a legacy system using unstructured or free/plain text is shown” [0036], “For example, when the modality is `ultrasound` (US) and laterality is `right,` then prior art reports that include US and right breast information (e.g., text and/or images) for the particular patient are automatically extracted, e.g., using text and/or image recognition devices or algorithms, where the latest report of such reports may be deemed to be the most relevant prior report.” [0042], “As shown in FIG. 3, the system includes report analyzer 310, which may be a semantic natural language processing module that receives and turns an unstructured radiology report 315 into a collection of interpretations 320 for output.” [0046], “A shown in FIGS. 2 and FIG. 9, the highlighted prior report 240, 940 with free or unstructured text is displayed side by side with the BIRADS descriptors (e.g., 950, 960 in FIG. 9) associated with the highlighted portions of the prior or unstructured report.”),
wherein the plurality of medical documents includes:
(ii) one or more reference medical documents, different from the interaction-target medical document, received from a server connected to the information processing apparatus and having creation times different from a creation time of the interaction-target medical document, the one or more reference medical documents being used as references for the interaction-target medical document ([0011], “aiding the preparation of a proper study/report and diagnosis that takes into account relevant prior studies, e.g., for comparison with current studies, such as by suggesting prior studies that are relevant to the selected BIRADS annotation and by highlighting fragments of sentences, or groups of sentences, relevant to the selected BIRADS annotation..” [0077], “the processor 1010 may retrieve the information from the network for operation in accordance with the present system, such as the various databases that may reside in servers,”);
in a pre-processing phase,
for each of the plurality of medical documents, by natural language processing, classify sentences on a per-lesion basis and structure them into a set of descriptions which are natural language texts ([0033], “enable a user to select and/or classify/annotate content such as, for example, an image annotated with descriptors or a textual content with highlighted portions.” [0042], “the system includes report analyzer 310, which may be a semantic natural language processing module that receives and turns an unstructured radiology report 315 into a collection of interpretations 320 for output… Each interpretation 320 has attributes that describe, if any, various aspects of a lesion, e.g. laterality, locality, depth, shape, and/or other attributes, such as shown in the BIRADS ultrasound GUI 230 in FIG. 2B” [0071], “identifying sentences in the sections; grouping words in the sentences to form grouped words for each sentence; determining modality and laterality of the each sentence from the grouped words; and mapping the modality and laterality of the each sentence to modality and laterality words to obtain the interpretations.”);
for each lesion, identify, from the sentences classified on the per-lesion basis, a lesion-indicating character string as a keyword ([0014], “translating by an ontology engine the descriptors into the keywords; and matching by a reasoning and matching engine the keywords with the interpretations to identify interpretations that match with the keywords. Further, the analyzing may includes segmenting the further report into sections; identifying sentences in the sections; grouping words in the sentences to form grouped words for each sentence; determining modality and laterality of the each sentence from the grouped words; and mapping the modality and laterality of the each sentence to modality and laterality words to obtain the interpretations.” [0042], “the system includes report analyzer 310, which may be a semantic natural language processing module that receives and turns an unstructured radiology report 315 into a collection of interpretations 320 for output… Each interpretation 320 has attributes that describe, if any, various aspects of a lesion, e.g. laterality, locality, depth, shape, and/or other attributes, such as shown in the BIRADS ultrasound GUI 230 in FIG. 2B”);
based on the set of descriptions classified from the interaction-target one or more reference medical documents, specify descriptions that correspond to each other for a same lesion, thereby identifying, for the same lesion, mutually corresponding descriptions contained in the medical document and the set of descriptions classified from each of the interaction-target medical document and in each of the one or more reference medical documents, using the keyword identified for the lesion ([0036], “The present system automatically find the prior study 240 that is relevant to the current study 210, and correlate portions of the prior study 240 that match the BIRADS descriptors to the BIRADS descriptors selected from the BIRADS GUI 230 and/or to the current study/images that include annotated BIRADS descriptors. For example, the present system automatically finds a list of prior studies related to breast examination of the same patient of a current breast study, ordered by any desired or selected order, such as by date. The search or automatic extraction may be narrowed to include attributes, such a modality and/or laterality, which may be user selected or automatically extracted from the BIRADS descriptors.” [0052], “system highlights the sentences in the unstructured report 600 that are ultrasound-specific and highlight relevant keywords that match the BIRADS descriptors/ findings.” [0037], “After finding prior reports related to the currently annotated lesion, physicians will compare the progression of the lesion, in terms of size, shape, margin, density etc.”);
generate correspondence information indicating, for each lesion, the mutually corresponding descriptions between the interaction-target medical document and each of the one or more reference medical documents ([0036], “The present system automatically find the prior study 240 that is relevant to the current study 210, and correlate portions of the prior study 240 that match the BIRADS descriptors to the BIRADS descriptors selected from the BIRADS GUI 230 and/or to the current study/images that include annotated BIRADS descriptors.” [0037], “After finding prior reports related to the currently annotated lesion, physicians will compare the progression of the lesion, in terms of size, shape, margin, density etc.”);
in an interaction phase,
display the interaction-target medical document on the display ([0046], “The user interface displaying engine 360 provides its output 365 to a monitor 370 to display the report 315 with relevant (or matched) fragments of the report being highlighted in accordance with the identified relevant interpretations 355 that match the BIRADS finding as determined by the reasoning and matching engine 350.”);
display, on the display in each of the one or more reference medical documents, a description of the each of the one or more reference medical document corresponding to a description including the designated character string in a manner different from other descriptions other than the description corresponding to the description including the designated character string ([0051], “FIG. 3, the reasoning and matching engine 350 compares the interpretations 320 from the report analyzer 310 with the extracted attributes 340, and identifies relevant interpretations 355 (of the report 315) that matches the extracted attributes or keywords 340. The relevant or matched report interpretations 355 are provided to the user interface displaying engine 360 that highlights the relevant interpretations and provides the report 365 with the highlighted relevant interpretations to the monitor 370 for display.”),
wherein the displayed description is determined using the correspondence information and is one of the mutually corresponding descriptions specified for the same lesion, based on a link between (i) the designated character string and (ii) a corresponding description in the one or more reference medical documents ([0051], “FIG. 3, the reasoning and matching engine 350 compares the interpretations 320 from the report analyzer 310 with the extracted attributes 340, and identifies relevant interpretations 355 (of the report 315) that matches the extracted attributes or keywords 340. The relevant or matched report interpretations 355 are provided to the user interface displaying engine 360 that highlights the relevant interpretations and provides the report 365 with the highlighted relevant interpretations to the monitor 370 for display.” [0014], “matching by a reasoning and matching engine the keywords with the interpretations to identify interpretations that match with the keywords.” [0036], “The present system automatically find the prior study 240 that is relevant to the current study 210, and correlate portions of the prior study 240 that match the BIRADS descriptors to the BIRADS descriptors selected from the BIRADS GUI 230 and/or to the current study/images that include annotated BIRADS descriptors.”).
Although Qian does not explicitly recite receiving a medical document from an input device, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Qian that the system would be able to receive one medical document of the plurality of medical documents from the input device (Fig. 10, [0042], “FIG. 5 includes components similar to those shown in FIGS. 3-4. While FIG. 5 shows the report analyzer 310 receiving one report 315 and providing interpretations 320, similar to FIG. 3, it should be understood that the report analyzer 310 may receive and analyze several reports 415 to produce interpretations 420 of the plurality of reports 451” [0075], “The operation acts may include requesting, selecting, providing, and/or rendering of content such as displaying images annotated with structured descriptors, e.g., BIRADS descriptors and/or relevant free-text or unstructured text reports. The user input 1040 may include a keyboard, mouse, trackball or other device, including touch sensitive displays, which may be stand alone or be a part of a system, such as part of a personal computer, personal digital assistant, mobile phone, set top box, television or other device for communicating with the processor 1010 via any operable link. The user input device 1040 may be operable for interacting with the processor 1010 including enabling interaction within a UI as described herein. Clearly the processor 1010, the memory 1020, display 1030 and/or user input device 1040 may all or partly be a portion of a computer system or other device such as a client and/or server as described herein.”). As the user interface includes operation acts, such as requesting content including unstructured text reports, it would be reasonable to conclude that a document/report provided to the report analyzer (red box in Fig. 3) may be provided through the user input device (green box in Fig. 10, comprising an electronic means interfacing with the computing system).
PNG
media_image1.png
647
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
538
465
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the report analyzer input as taught by fig. 3 of Qian for receiving information from a user input device as disclosed by fig. 10 of Qian since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, replacing the method of reception of a document from a general input with a user input device would produce a predictable result. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other (MPEP 2143).
Although Qian does teach an interaction-target medical document ([0034], “in one current study 210 (also referred to as a reference study) shown on the right side of FIG. 2A, a lesion in an image is or was described using BIRADS descriptors 220 selected from a BIRADS GUI 230, where images may by annotated with BIRADS descriptors 220 using systems like Integral Breast.TM., or other systems… FIG. 2B shows the BIRADS GUI 230 by itself for better clarity.”), Qian does not explicitly teach (i) an interaction-target medical document received from the input device and displayed for a user to designate a character string in the interaction-target medical document; and receiving, by the input device, designation of a character string in the interaction-target medical document by selecting, within the displayed unstructured natural language text, the character string in the displayed unstructured natural language text of the interaction-target medical document
However, Hirakawa does teach (i) an interaction-target medical document received from the input device and displayed for a user to designate a character string in the interaction-target medical document ([0066], “the “medical information” means a medical document, such as an interpretation report, a diagnosis report, and an electronic medical record, and also includes a medical document including information (for example, an image) other than character information.” [0108], “a current interpretation report (hereinafter, referred to as a current report)” [0110], “In step S16, the character receiving unit 26 determines whether or not there is a designation of a character. Specifically, as an example, the cursor 39 for designating a character by the radiologist is displayed so as to overlap the current image 35, and the radiologist moves the cursor 39 to a desired character by operating the input unit 15. After moving the cursor 39 on the desired character, the radiologist selects the character string 40 of “There is B at part b.” as shown in FIG. 5 by dragging from the left click position, and the character receiving unit 26 receives the selected character string 40 as designated characters.”); and
receive, by the input device, designation of a character string in the interaction-target medical document by selecting, within the displayed unstructured natural language text, the character string in the displayed unstructured natural language text of the interaction-target medical document ([0110], “In step S16, the character receiving unit 26 determines whether or not there is a designation of a character. Specifically, as an example, the cursor 39 for designating a character by the radiologist is displayed so as to overlap the current image 35, and the radiologist moves the cursor 39 to a desired character by operating the input unit 15. After moving the cursor 39 on the desired character, the radiologist selects the character string 40 of “There is B at part b.” as shown in FIG. 5 by dragging from the left click position, and the character receiving unit 26 receives the selected character string 40 as designated characters.” [0009], “the character may include feature information indicating a feature of a lesion.” [0137], “in a case where the radiologist designates the character string 40 of “There is B at part b.” as characters by operating the cursor 39 in the character information of the past interpretation report, the region of the lesion B of the part b is displayed as a position relevant to the character string 40 of “There is B at part b.” so as to be emphasized in the current image 35.”).
Qian in view of Hirakawa are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of medical reports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qian with Hirakawa for the advantage of “receiv[ing] the selected character string 40 as designated characters” (Hirakawa; [0110]).
Regarding claim 4, Qian in view of Hirakawa teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1. Qian further teaches wherein the medical document includes a medical image corresponding to the medical document ([0005], “FIG. 1 shows a report 100 using BIRADS for annotating images that includes various sections” [0007], “key radiological images may be shown, such as x-ray mammogram images 170.”), and
the processor is configured to display at least a partial region of the medical image related to the differently displayed description in a manner different from other regions other than the partial region ([0007], “The medical report may include an image annotated with the descriptors,” [0031], “The term rendering and formatives thereof as utilized herein refer to providing content, such as digital media which may include, for example, images annotated with descriptors, list of descriptors for selection and annotation of desired portions of images, etc., such that it may be perceived by at least one user sense, such as a sense of sight” [0037], “a lesion on an image describing the lesion where such BIRADS annotations may be superimposed on the image”). Examiner interprets annotating desired portions of images to encompass displaying a partial region of the image in a manner different from other regions, as the other regions would not be annotated. Examiner notes that the relevant portions of the medical image in Fig. 1, cropped section shown below, have been circled, which is displaying in a manner different from the non-relevant portions of the image.
PNG
media_image3.png
293
477
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Qian in view of Hirakawa teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1. Qian further teaches wherein the processor is configured to display character strings related to the mutually corresponding descriptions in the interaction-target medical document in a manner different from other character strings other than the related character strings ([0012], “highlighting words and/or sentences in the further report that match keywords derived from the descriptors. The medical report and the further report may be displayed simultaneously with the words and/or sentences being highlighted.” [0035], “FIG. 6 shows the text report 240 by itself for better clarity, where instead of the text that matches BIRADS descriptors being surrounded by a box, the matched text is highlighted.”).
Regarding claim 6, Qian in view of Hirakawa teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1. Qian further teaches wherein the processor is configured to display the description including the character string in the interaction-target medical document in a manner different from other descriptions other than the description including the character string ([0038], “The present systems and methods help physicians to perform the above-mentioned tasks by finding suggesting prior studies that are relevant to the selected BIRADS annotation, and by highlighting fragments of sentences relevant to the selected BIRADS annotation... In the case where a relevant prior report includes studies of both the right and left breasts of the patient, using both US and MAM modalities, than only portions of the prior report that are relevant to the current study are highlighted, namely, portions that are related US of the right breast. Thus, portions in the prior study related to the left breast, or related to MAM of the right breast are not highlighted, since these portions are not relevant to the current study which is for an US study of the right breast of the patient.”).
Regarding claim 7, Qian in view of Hirakawa teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1. Qian does not teach wherein the interaction-target medical document is a medical document currently being created.
However, Hirakawa does teach wherein the one medical document is a medical document currently being created ([0065], “The image receiving unit 21 receives a current image acquired by imaging the subject. In the present embodiment, the “current image” is an image to be referred to at the time of creating an interpretation report, and a plurality of tomographic images forming a three-dimensional image correspond to the current image. In the present embodiment, it is assumed that a three-dimensional image is a CT image of a thoracoabdominal portion. Specifically, the interpretation WS 3 instructs the image server 5 to transmit a CT image that is a target of an interpretation report to be created by the radiologist this time.”).
Qian in view of Hirakawa are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of medical reports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qian with Hirakawa for the advantage of providing “support for the creation of an interpretation report” (Hirakawa; [0057]).
Regarding claim 8, Qian in view of Hirakawa teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1. Qian further teaches wherein the plurality of medical documents include medical documents acquired by different modalities at least in part ([0037], “In case of breast cancers, mammography using x-rays (MAM), ultrasound imaging (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are modalities that are often used.” [0041], “Further descriptors may be associated with the first descriptors or `breast` such as ultrasound or (modality, US), and thus, only occurrences of breast associated with the `right breast` and ultrasound or US are highlighted, and occurrences in the prior report of `right breast` and ultrasound or x-ray mammogram or MAM are not highlighted.”).
Regarding claim 9, Qian in view of Hirakawa teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1. Qian further teaches wherein the processor is configured to, in a case in which a plurality of reference medical documents are displayed ([0034], “FIG. 2A shows a view 200 of reports that are automatically correlated and concurrently displayed according to one embodiment of the present systems and methods.”),
preferentially display the description in the different manner for the reference medical document whose creation time is closer to the interaction-target medical document ([0037], “For example, when the modality is `ultrasound` (US) and laterality is `right,` then prior art reports that include US and right breast information (e.g., text and/or images) for the particular patient are automatically extracted, e.g., using text and/or image recognition devices or algorithms, where the latest report of such reports may be deemed to be the most relevant prior report.”).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Qian further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores an information processing program causing a computer to execute the claim limitations of claim 1 ([0016], “A further embodiment includes a computer program product including non-transitory computer data stored on a tangible computer readable medium, where the computer program product comprised program code configured to perform the one or more the acts in accordance with the methods for viewing a report generated and/or annotated using a limited or predefined set of descriptors, such as BIRADS descriptors.”).
Regarding claim 12, Qian in view of Hirakawa teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1. Qian does not teach wherein, in the interaction phase, the processor monitors a user designation of a character string in the interaction-target medical document, and, in response to the user designation, causes the corresponding description in the reference medical document to be displayed in the manner different from the other descriptions.
However, Hirakawa does teach wherein, in the interaction phase, the processor monitors a user designation of a character string in the interaction-target medical document ([0110], “the cursor 39 for designating a character by the radiologist is displayed so as to overlap the current image 35, and the radiologist moves the cursor 39 to a desired character by operating the input unit 15. After moving the cursor 39 on the desired character, the radiologist selects the character string 40 of “There is B at part b.” as shown in FIG. 5 by dragging from the left click position, and the character receiving unit 26 receives the selected character string 40 as designated characters.” [0111], “Then, in a case where there is a designation of a character by the radiologist in step SI6 (step S16; YES), the character receiving unit 26 receives the designation of the character by the radiologist.”), and,
in response to the user designation, causes the corresponding description in the reference medical document to be displayed in the manner different from the other descriptions ([0115], “Then, in step S18, the display control unit 25 performs control to display the region, which is indicated by the coordinate position on the current image 35 of the lesion B located at the part b specified by the position specifying unit 27, so as to be emphasized on the display unit 14. Specifically, as shown in FIG. 5, the display control unit 25 displays the position relevant to the character string 40 of “There is B at part b.” so as to be emphasized more than other parts and other lesions by displaying the lesion B of the part b in the current image 35 displayed in the past interpretation report region 37 so as to be surrounded by a round frame.”).
Qian in view of Hirakawa are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of medical reports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qian with Hirakawa for the advantage of providing a system wherein “the radiologist can easily check” how “the finding contents of the past interpretation report, has progressed in the current image” (Hirakawa; [0119]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian (US 20140149407) in view of Hirakawa (US 20190279408) further in view of Mabotuwania (US 20160314278).
Regarding claim 3, Qian in view of Hirakawa teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1. Qian in view of Hirakawa does not teach wherein the processor is configured to: further specify a difference between corresponding descriptions included in each of the plurality of medical documents; and display the difference in a manner different from descriptions other than the difference in the one or more reference medical documents, instead of the description corresponding to the description including the designated character string or in addition to the description corresponding to the description including the designated character string.
However, Mabotuwania does teach wherein the processor is configured to:
further specify a difference between corresponding descriptions included in each of the plurality of medical documents ([0004], “FIG. 2, the clinical support system 14 provides an assessment of the interval change of measured findings in previous clinical documents and displays the interval change in a consistent guideline-compliant manner.” [0065], “The clinical support system 14 further includes a guideline management engine 72 which provides a qualitative assessment of the interval change of measured findings in the previous clinical documents. An implementation of a guideline can be considered as a set of rules of the form: If <measurement equation 1> and . . . and <measurement equation K> then <assessment>. Here, <measurement equation i> stands for an algebraic equation involving measurement data, such as “longest diameter on current exam/longest diameter on prior exam >1.2”; and <assessment> stands for “stable” or “decreased”, etc.”); and
display the difference in a manner different from descriptions other than the difference in the one or more reference medical documents, instead of the description corresponding to the description including the designated character string or in addition to the description corresponding to the description including the designated character string ([0047], “FIG. 4, an exemplary embodiment of a longitudinal view of patient findings interface 300 generated by the clinical support system is illustrated… The underlined measurements 310 refer to a measurement or image reference made on the prior exam.” [0040], “The content of the clinical documents can be detected using a predefined list of keywords and text matching techniques.”). Examiner notes that the differences in the measurements of the liver and spleen lesions can be easily seen below, distinct from the rest of the descriptions (boxed measurements).
PNG
media_image4.png
468
719
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Qian in view of Mabotuwania are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of medical reports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qian with Mabotuwania for the advantage of “show[ing] the clinical finding progression over time” (Mabotuwania; [0066]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian (US 20140149407) in view of Hirakawa (US 20190279408) further in view of Moriya (US 20120183188).
Regarding claim 13, Qian in view of Hirakawa teaches the information processing teaches the information processing apparatus of claim 1. Qian in view of Hirakawa does not teach wherein the processor assigns, to the designated character string or to the keyword identified for the lesion, a link to the corresponding description in at least one reference medical document, and the displayed description is determined based on the link.
However, Moriya does teach wherein the processor assigns, to the designated character string or to the keyword identified for the lesion, a link to the corresponding description in at least one reference medical document, and the displayed description is determined based on the link ([0143], “Link information display means 40 displays the past lesion character and current lesion character in a distinguishable manner based on the image reading report identification information. For example, the date of image reading report may be displayed in the reconstructed medical image as the image reading report identification information, in addition to the link character.” [0144], “This allows link information display means 40 to display a past lesion character representing a lesion described in a past image reading report in a reconstructed second medical image, whereby a lesion position corresponding to the past lesion position may be referenced easily in the current medical image.” [0035], “the link information display unit may be a unit that displays the word or phrase before and after the lesion character in addition to the link character.” [0036], “the link character may be a character linked to the lesion character in the image reading report by a hyperlink, and the image reading report display unit is preferable to be a unit that, in response to the specification of the link character in the second medical image, additionally displays the entirety of the image reading report that includes the lesion character corresponding to the specified link character with the lesion character corresponding to the specified link character in the additionally displayed image reading report being highlighted.”).
Qian in view of Hirakawa further in view of Moriya are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of medical reports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qian in view of Hirakawa with Moriya for the advantage of system wherein “a diagnosis with reference to the progress of the past lesion may be made easily and image reading may be performed efficiently” (Moriya; [0144]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-3931. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached on (571)270-1360. 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.
/D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights