DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 6-18, 20-23 and 25-26 are pending.
Claims 2-5, 19, 24 and 27 are canceled.
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 18, 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims 18, 23 and 26, the following 2-step analysis is applied for analyzing the 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject matter eligibility of the claims.
Step 1: The Statutory Categories
Claims 18, 23 and 26 recite(s) a machine (apparatus), a process (method), and a manufacture (storage medium), respectively.
Step 2A: The Judicial Exceptions
Prong 1: do the claims recite an exception?
Claim(s) 18, 23, and 26 is/are directed to the abstract idea of collecting information and applying conditional fallback logic to retrieve data. The claims constitute a mental process because the steps (checking if an image is available and picking an alternative if it is not) can practically be performed in the human mind, unlike massive-scale vector math. It also represents a basic method of organizing human activity.
Prong 2: is the exception integrated into a practical application?
Claim(s) 18, 23, and 26 does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims stop entirely at data acquisition. They do not apply the retrieved images to any specialized technological process, such as actually generating the diagnostic subtraction image, and thus fail to integrate the concept into a practical application.
Step 2B: The Inventive Concept
Do the claims amount to "significantly more" than the exception?
The additional elements in the claims (e.g., at least one processor, memory storing instructions) are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoke generic computer components to perform standard data retrieval functions. They do not add an inventive concept.
Conclusion: Claim(s) 18, 23, and 26 is/are directed to an abstract idea and lacks an inventive concept. Claim(s) 18, 23, and 26 is/are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 18, 23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahesh (US20070071294) in view of MacMahon et al (US20050111718) and further in view of Sorenson et al (US20190392943).
Regarding claims 18, 23 and 26, Mahesh teaches an image processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor coupled with at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
(Mahesh, Fig. 1; "The components of the system 100 may communicate via wired and/or wireless connections on one or more processing units, such as computers, medical systems, storage devices, custom processors, and/or other processing units.", [0012]; "Certain embodiments of the present invention may provide for a computer-readable storage medium including a set of instructions for a computer.", [0008]; Mahesh teaches a medical diagnosis apparatus)
acquire first image data which is image data obtained by imaging a subject by a first examination;
(Mahesh, Fig. 1; "a medical imaging device 150 is used to capture a current image or set of images of a patient.", [0014]; "a radiologist or other healthcare professional may perform an examination using a medical imaging device 150.", [0021]; capturing a current image of the subject during an examination, corresponding to acquiring first image data obtained by imaging a subject by a first examination)
acquire comparison image data for performing comparison to the first image data; and
(Mahesh, "may relate to parameters for selecting images from the historical images archive 140 to compare with current images captured by the medical imaging device 150", [0016]; selecting and acquiring image data expressly for comparison against the current/first image, corresponding to acquiring comparison image data for performing comparison to the first image data)
perform at least any one of:
1st acquiring comparison image data including:
attempt to acquire, as the comparison image data, second image data which is image data obtained by imaging the subject by a second examination which is a past examination performed before the first examination; and
(Mahesh, "historical images related to a current image or set of current images captured by the medical imaging device 150 for the same patient, using the same modality, on the same body part (e.g. lung, heart, brain, etc.) are to be selected and forwarded on to the PACS workstation 110 for comparison", [0016]; MacMahon, "Radiologists routinely compare multiple chest radiographs acquired from the same patient over time", [0034]; "Given that a patient will, in general, have a current radiographic examination and multiple prior examinations", [0038]. Mahesh teaches acquiring a prior/historical image of the same subject as the comparison image. MacMahon expressly frames a current examination versus multiple prior examinations, confirming the "second examination which is a past examination performed before the first" character)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate MacMahon's explicit current-vs-prior-examination selection into Mahesh's PACS comparison workflow, both analogous medical image-subtraction systems, in order to more reliably obtain the prior-examination comparison image. The combination of Mahesh and MacMahon also teaches other enhanced capabilities.
The combination of Mahesh and MacMahon further teaches:
acquire, when the second image data has failed to be acquired, as the comparison image data, third image data which is image data different in contrast enhancement state from the first image data, and
(Mahesh, "a radiologist or other healthcare professional may use a medical imaging device 150 to capture an image (or set of images) without contrast and then capture a second image (or set of images) using contrast", [0017]. Sorenson, "It may also happen due to a lack of availability of prior imaging studies that are related to the current one", "various engines/operations can be expected to fail", "It can utilize this information in an engine of engines that analyzes data and influences which engines, ensembles and operations are run, to best deliver the required/desired findings for any particular study", [0045]; Mahesh teaches that a contrast-differing image usable for comparison is obtainable from the current examination itself, so it remains available precisely when priors are not. Sorenson teaches detecting the specific condition that the related prior study is unavailable, i.e., the second/past image failing to be acquired, and adaptively influencing the operations run in response)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Sorenson into Mahesh and MacMahon in order to detect when the preferred prior/historical comparison study is unavailable and automatically fall back to the contrast-differing image obtainable from the current examination, so that a usable comparison image is still acquired and diagnostic continuity is preserved when the prior study fails to be acquired. The combination of Mahesh, MacMahon and Sorenson also teaches other enhanced capabilities.
The combination of Mahesh, MacMahon and Sorenson further teaches:
2nd acquiring comparison image data including:
attempt to acquire, as the comparison image data, second image data which is image data different in contrast enhancement state from the first image data; and
(Mahesh, "a radiologist or other healthcare professional may use a medical imaging device 150 to capture an image (or set of images) without contrast and then capture a second image (or set of images) using contrast.", [0017]; acquiring, as the comparison image, an image differing in contrast enhancement state (without-contrast versus with-contrast) from the first image)
acquire, when the second image data has failed to be acquired, as the comparison image data, third image data which is image data obtained by imaging the subject by a third examination which is a past examination performed before the first examination; and
(Sorenson, "technical acquisition parameters (e.g. contrast bolus timing) directly impact the ability of an engine to confidently identify a given finding", [0048]; "various engines/operations can be expected to fail", "It can utilize this information in an engine of engines that analyzes data and influences which engines, ensembles and operations are run, to best deliver the required/desired findings for any particular study", [0045]; Mahesh, "historical images related to a current image or set of current images captured by the medical imaging device 150 for the same patient, using the same modality, on the same body part (e.g. lung, heart, brain, etc.) are to be selected and forwarded on to the PACS workstation 110 for comparison", [0016]; MacMahon; "Given that a patient will, in general, have a current radiographic examination and multiple prior examinations", [0038]. Sorenson teaches that a contrast-dependent image can fail on acquisition-quality grounds (e.g., contrast bolus timing) and that the system adaptively influences the operations run when engines/operations fail. Mahesh and MacMahon teach that a past-examination image is available as the alternative comparison image. Together they teach falling back to the past-examination image when the contrast-differing image fails to be acquired. Incorporating Sorenson's data-availability/quality-driven adaptive selection into Mahesh/MacMahon preserves a usable comparison image when the contrast image is unavailable)
(Claim 18 recites optional selections “... perform at least any one of: (1) 1st acquiring ...; (2) 2nd acquiring ...; (3) select, ...; and (4) acquire ...”. Options (1) and (2) are selected for examinations while options (3) and (4) are newly added limitations but not selected)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1, 6-17, 20-22 and 25 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/20/2026 with respect to one or more of the pending claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim(s) 18 and 23, applicant has amended the claims with additional optional limitations: “... perform at least any one of: (1) 1st acquiring ...; (2) 2nd acquiring ...; (3) select, ... (newly amended); and (4) acquire ... (newly amended)”. The amendment does not further narrow the scopes of the claims. The original options (1) and (2) are selected for examination in this updated office action (the rejection under 35 USC § 101 and the rejection under 35 USC § 103).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JIANXUN YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9874. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI: 8AM-5PM Pacific Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571)272-3382. 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.
/JIANXUN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662 9/19/2026
Prosecution Insights