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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the reply filed 2/5/2026.
Claims 1-8 were amended 2/5/2026.
Claims 9-11 were added 2/5/2026.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-10 are drawn to an apparatus, system, and method which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claims 1 and 8 recite acquir[ing] attribute information indicating an attribute of an object and analysis information indicating an analysis result of a medical image of the object; generat[ing] a pre-order, which is a choice or an option of an order including at least one of an imaging order and a treatment order based on the attribute information and the analysis information, the imaging order being an instruction that indicates imaging of the object, and the treatment order being an instruction that indicates treating the object; caus[ing] display the pre-order, receive approval or modification of the pre-order by an input operation of a user.
Independent claim 7 recites output analysis result of a medical image of an object by analyzing the medical image of the object in accordance with an analysis order received; acquire attribute information indicating an attribute of the object and analysis information indicating the analysis result of the object; generate a plurality of pre-orders each of which is a choice or an option of an order including at least one of an imaging order and a treatment order based on the attribute information and the analysis information, the imaging order being an instruction that indicates imaging of the object, and the treatment order being an instruction that indicates treating the object; transmit the analysis order, the analysis order being an instruction to analyze the medical image of the object and output the analysis result; acquire medical history information indicating a medical history of the object; acquire the pre-orders; narrow down the pre-orders based on the medical history information to cause display a narrowed-down pre-order, receive approval of the narrowed-down pre-order by an input operation of a user and issue at least one of the imaging order and the treatment order based on the narrowed-down pre-order of which the approval has been received.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity between a user and a patient, as reflected in the specification, which states that “the medical information processing apparatus 2 proposes a chest contrast-enhanced CT imaging order as the imaging order. Further, the medical information processing apparatus 2 may propose a CT image analysis order as an analysis order and propose a treatment order. According to at least one embodiment described above, the order can be quickly executed and the patient can be treated quickly.” (see: specification page 31). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address “The approval reception function 344 includes a function to receive approval of the pre-order by a doctor's operation on the HIS terminal 7. A doctor is one example of a user. The order issuing function 345 includes a function to issue at least one of the imaging order and the treatment order on the basis of the pre-order of which the approval has been received by the approval reception function 344.” (see: specification page 14). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).”
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “medical information processing apparatus”, “first processing circuitry”, “display”, “medical information processing system”, “hospital information management system”, “second processing circuitry” are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the generating and displaying is performed using generic computer components with instructions are executed to perform the claimed limitations). Such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, Figure 2 and
Page 9, where “As shown in Fig. 1, the medical information processing apparatus 2 includes a display 21, an input interface 22, a network interface 23, processing circuitry 24, and a memory 25. The display 21 is composed of a general display output device such as a liquid crystal display and an OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) display, for example.”
Page 10, where “The processing circuitry 24 implements a function of integrally controlling the medical information processing apparatus 2. In addition, the processing circuitry 24 is a processor that reads out and executes programs stored in the memory 25 so as to analyze medical images and issue pre-orders. The processing circuitry 24 is one example of first processing circuitry.”
Page 8, where “The hospital information system 3 is composed of a plurality of general information processing apparatuses such as a personal computer and a workstation. The hospital information system 3 is one example of a hospital information management system.”
Page 5, where “Fig. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a configuration of a medical information processing system 1 according to the first embodiment. As shown in Fig. 1, the medical information processing system 1 includes the medical information processing apparatus 2, a hospital information system 3, a modality 4, a treatment department PC 5, a mobile terminal 6 (i.e., portable terminal 6), and a HIS (hospital information system) terminal 7. The respective components are configured to be able to communicate with each other via a network 8. In the following, it is assumed that data are transmitted and received between respective components via the network 8, and the phrase "via the network 8" is omitted in description of transmission/reception of data.”
Page 13, where “The processing circuitry 34 implements a function of integrally controlling the hospital information system 3. The processing circuitry 34 is a processor that reads out and executes programs stored in the memory 35 so as to perform processing for allowing the in-hospital data to be operated, stored, and viewed. The processing circuitry 34 is one example of second processing circuitry. The processor of the processing circuitry 34 implements an analysis order function 341, a medical history acquisition function 342, a display control function 343, an approval reception function 344, and an order issuing function 345 by reading out and executing the computer programs stored in the memory 35 or a memory in the processing circuitry 34.”
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with route, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-6, 9-10 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 2-6 recite generating and analyzing healthcare data from composite patient records on the generically recited computing device as shown in the parent claims above.
Claim 6 further recites “second processing circuitry” and “hospital information management system” which is recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the acquiring and transmitting are performed using generic computer components with instructions are executed to perform the claimed limitations) as shown in the specification page 13 and page 8. Such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 9 further recites “X-ray computer tomography scanning apparatus” and “a machine learning model”. The X-ray computer tomography scanning apparatus is generically recited as an input/output device on pages 8-9. The machine learning is recited generically on page 16 and indicates that a “normal program” could be used for analysis. These elements do not provide significantly more to overcome the abstract idea.
Claim 10 further recites “an MRI scanning apparatus” is generically recited as an input/output device on pages 8-9 and does not provide significantly more to overcome the abstract idea.
These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim 11 recites that the drug is administered to the patient and provides a practical application that overcomes the abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colley (US 2021/0090694 A1) in view of Takeyama (US 2016/0140305 A1).
CLAIM 1-
Colley teaches the limitations of:
A medical information processing apparatus comprising first processing circuitry configured to: acquire attribute information indicating an attribute of an object (Colley teaches a system that includes a processor (i.e., processing apparatus) with circuitry (i.e., first processing circuitry) that obtains attributes of patient data from their prior clinical record (i.e., medical history, an attribute of an object in page 14 of the specification) (para [1475, 1880-1881]))
and analysis information indicating an analysis result of a medical image of the object; (Colley teaches analyzing the images in a report for medical data (para [1080, 1293]))
generate a pre-order, which is a choice or an option of an order including at least one of an imaging order …based on the attribute information and the analysis information, the imaging order being an instruction that indicates imaging of the object, and the treatment order being an instruction that indicates treating the object; (Colley teaches that based on the received patient data including attribute data and imaging data that is analyzed, an order is placed for an imaging order that treats the subject based on user input of the node on the plot based on the user’s choice (para [1966, 1224, 1293, 3102]), Figure 404)
cause a display to display the pre-order (Colley teaches that the system determines which scheduled requests to take place such as an MRI scan (i.e., imaging order, as a pre-order as shown in specification is a medical treatment to be performed page 6) and is displayed (para [1966, 2141, 1979]))
receive approval or modification of the pre-order by an input operation of a user (Colley teaches the user using authorization to enter a specific request for an order of a distinct test (i.e., modification) (para [1396]))
Colley does not explicitly teach, however Takeyama teaches:
generate a pre-order including … and a treatment order based on the attribute information and the analysis information; (Takeyama teaches generating a treatment plan including a treatment order based on patient data including attribute data and analysis of the ultrasonic image to determine diagnostic features of the image for diagnosis support (para [0098, 0014, 0112, 0208], Figure 3))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the diagnosis and treatment plan system of Colley to integrate the imaging system and analysis of Takeyama with the motivation of increasing patient outcomes by improving treatment result through diagnosis support information being tracked through a treatment plan (see: Takeyama, paragraph 12).
CLAIM 2-
Colley in view of Takeyama teach the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 2, Colley further teaches:
wherein the first processing circuitry is further configured to: generate rationale information indicating grounds for generating the pre-order based on the attribute information and the analysis information; and (Colley teaches a system that includes a processor (i.e., processing apparatus) with circuitry (i.e., first processing circuitry) that obtains attributes of patient data from their prior clinical record (i.e., medical history, an attribute of an object in page 14 of the specification) and analysis data and ranks the data using rules (i.e., rationale information) using truths (i.e., grounds) (para [1475, 1880-1881, 1385, 1458]))
cause the display to display the rationale information together with the pre-order (Colley teaches that the system displays the data in windows on the same UI that include the rules with snippets on why the value is correct (i.e., rationale data) for the given field (i.e., pre-order) (para [1678]))
CLAIM 3-
Colley in view of Takeyama teach the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 3, Colley further teaches:
wherein the first processing circuitry is further configured to: identify at least one candidate disease of the object based on the attribute information and the analysis information; (Colley teaches a system that includes a processor (i.e., processing apparatus) with circuitry (i.e., first processing circuitry) that obtains attributes of patient data from their prior clinical record (i.e., medical history, an attribute of an object in page 14 of the specification) and analysis data to identify a potential diagnosis pathway (para [1475, 1880-1881, 1385, 2420]))
acquire history data of the imaging order, (Colley teaches that the patient medical history includes the imaging and testing taken (para [2561]))
the imaging order being an instruction to generate a medical image necessary for diagnosing the candidate disease, (Colley teaches that based on the received patient data including attribute data and imaging data that is analyzed, an order is placed for an imaging order (para [1966, 1224, 1293]))
the treatment order being an instruction to perform treatment of the candidate disease; and (Colley teaches decision making such as prescribing a treatment to the patient to treat their disease (para [2840]))
generate the pre-order based on the history data (Colley teaches that the system suggests an optimized treatment plan based on the patient data obtained which includes history data (para [2459, 2561]))
CLAIM 4-
Colley in view of Takeyama teach the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 4, Colley further teaches:
wherein the first processing circuitry is further configured to: generate a plurality of pre-orders; (Colley teaches a system that includes a processor (i.e., processing apparatus) with circuitry (i.e., first processing circuitry) can generate multiple treatment pathways (i.e., pre-orders) (para [1475, 1880-1881, 2414, 2420]))
and narrow down the pre-orders to be displayed on the display depending on number of times that each pre-order has been executed (Colley teaches displaying the best treatment options (i.e., narrow down of pre-orders) based on the rankings of the treatment efficacy based on popularity data (i.e., number of times the treatment has been administered) (para [1985, 3334, 1485, 1823]))
CLAIM 5-
Colley in view of Takeyama teach the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 5, Colley further teaches:
wherein the analysis information is an analysis result obtained by analyzing the medical image by an image analysis application (Colley teaches that imaging data that is analyzed using segmentation (i.e., image analysis application) to calculate features of the image (para [1966, 1224, 1293, 2394]))
Colley does not explicitly teach, however Takeyama teaches:
and the first processing circuitry is further configured to generate the pre-order including at least one of the imaging order and the treatment order based on the attribute information, the analysis result, or the report T(akeyama teaches generating a treatment plan including a treatment order based on patient data including attribute data and analysis of the ultrasonic image to determine diagnostic features of the image for diagnosis support on a system with a processor (para [0098, 0014, 0112, 0208], Figure 3, Figure 44))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the diagnosis and treatment plan system of Colley to integrate the imaging system of approving the treatment plan of the patient of Takeyama with the motivation of increasing patient outcomes by improving treatment result through diagnosis support information being tracked through a treatment plan (see: Takeyama, paragraph 12).
CLAIM 6-
Colley in view of Takeyama teach the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 6, Colley further teaches:
wherein the first processing circuitry is further configured to generate a plurality of pre-orders in cooperation with second processing circuitry of a hospital information management system, the second processing circuitry being configured to: (Colley teaches a system that includes a processor (i.e., processing apparatus) with circuitry (i.e., first processing circuitry) that generates multiple treatment pathways (i.e., pre-order) and communicates with a hospital system with separate databases of circuitry (i.e., second circuitry) (para [1475, 1880-1881, 2429, 3155, 1883]))
transmit an analysis order to the medical information processing apparatus, the analysis order being an instruction to analyze the medical image of the object and output the analysis result; (Colley teaches that the system obtains imaging data that is analyzed using segmentation (i.e., image analysis application) to calculate features of the image that are output and imaging orders can be part of the treatment pathway (para [1966, 1224, 1293, 2394, 1944, 1827]))
acquire medical history information indicating a medical history of the object; (Colley teaches that the patient medical history includes the imaging and testing taken (para [2561]))
acquire the pre-orders; (Colley teaches the system can generate and analyze multiple treatment pathways (i.e., pre-orders) (para [2414, 2420]))
narrow down the pre-orders based on the medical history information to cause a display of the hospital information management system to display a narrowed-down pre- order; (Colley teaches displaying the best treatment options (i.e., narrow down of pre-orders) based on the rankings of the treatment efficacy based on past medical history data (para [1985, 3334, 1485, 1823, 1982, 1620]))
receive approval of the narrowed-down pre-order by a user's operation; and (Colley teaches that the data is populated for a user to manual approve and the annotations to be approved can include the clinical patient treatment pathway data that is chosen (i.e., narrowed down pre-order) (para [1322, 2496, 1306-1307]))
Colley does not explicitly teach, however Takeyama teaches:
issue at least one of the imaging order and the treatment order based on the pre-order of which the approval has been received (Takeyama teaches that based on the treatment plan there is an approval before the treatment therapy is administered and includes the types of diagnostic imaging formed (para [0115, 0137]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the diagnosis and treatment plan system of Colley to integrate the imaging system of approving the treatment plan of the patient of Takeyama with the motivation of increasing patient outcomes by improving treatment result through diagnosis support information being tracked through a treatment plan (see: Takeyama, paragraph 12).
CLAIM 7-
Colley teaches that limitations of:
A medical information processing system comprising a medical information processing apparatus and a hospital information management system, wherein the medical information processing apparatus comprises first processing circuitry configured to: (Colley teaches a system that includes a processor (i.e., processing apparatus) with circuitry (i.e., first processing circuitry) that generates multiple treatment pathways (i.e., pre-order) and communicates with a hospital system with separate databases of circuitry (i.e., second circuitry) (para [1475, 1880-1881, 2429, 3155, 1883]))
output an analysis result of a medical image of an object by analyzing the medical image of the object in accordance with an analysis order received from the hospital information management system (Colley teaches that the system obtains imaging data that is analyzed using segmentation (i.e., image analysis application) to calculate features of the image that are output and imaging orders can be part of the treatment pathway based on data from the hospital system (para [1966, 1224, 1293, 2394, 1944, 1827, 2429, 3155, 1883]))
acquire attribute information indicating an attribute of the object and analysis information indicating the analysis result of the object; (Colley teaches obtaining attributes of patient data from their prior clinical record (i.e., medical history, an attribute of an object in page 14 of the specification) to analyze the patient (i.e., object) (para [1475, 1386]))
generate a plurality of pre-orders each of which is a choice or an option of an order including at least one of an imaging order … based on the attribute information and the analysis information, the imaging order being an instruction that indicates imaging of the object, and the treatment order being an instruction that indicates treating the object(Colley teaches that based on the received patient data including attribute data and imaging data that is analyzed, an order is placed for an imaging order an order is placed for an imaging order that treats the subject based on user input of the node on the plot based on the user’s choice (para [1966, 1224, 1293, 3102]), Figure 404)
wherein the hospital information management system comprises second processing circuitry configured to: (Colley teaches a system that includes a processor (i.e., processing apparatus) with circuitry (i.e., first processing circuitry) that generates multiple treatment pathways (i.e., pre-order) and communicates with a hospital system with separate databases of circuitry (i.e., second circuitry) (para [1475, 1880-1881, 2429, 3155, 1883])) transmit the analysis order to the medical information processing apparatus, the analysis order being an instruction to analyze the medical image of the object and output the analysis result; (Colley teaches that the system obtains imaging data that is analyzed using segmentation (i.e., image analysis application) to calculate features of the image that are output and imaging orders can be part of the treatment pathway (para [1966, 1224, 1293, 2394, 1944, 1827]))
acquire medical history information indicating a medical history of the object; (Colley teaches that the patient medical history includes the imaging and testing taken (para [2561]))
acquire the pre-orders; (Colley teaches the system can generate and analyze multiple treatment pathways (i.e., pre-orders) (para [2414, 2420]))
narrow down the pre-orders based on the medical history information to cause a display to display a narrowed-down pre- order; (Colley teaches displaying the best treatment options (i.e., narrow down of pre-orders) based on the rankings of the treatment efficacy based on past medical history data (para [1985, 3334, 1485, 1823, 1982, 1620]))
receive approval of the narrowed-down pre-order by an input operation of a user; and (Colley teaches that the data is populated for a user to manual approve and the annotations to be approved can include the clinical patient treatment pathway data that is chosen (i.e., narrowed down pre-order) (para [1322, 2496, 1306-1307]))
Colley does not explicitly teach, however Takeyama teaches:
generate a pre-order including … and a treatment order based on the attribute information and the analysis information; (Takeyama teaches generating a treatment plan including a treatment order based on patient data including attribute data and analysis of the ultrasonic image to determine diagnostic features of the image for diagnosis support (para [0098, 0014, 0112, 0208], Figure 3))
issue at least one of the imaging order and the treatment order based on the pre-order of which the approval has been received (Takeyama teaches that based on the treatment plan there is an approval before the treatment therapy is administered and includes the types of diagnostic imaging formed (para [0115, 0137]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the diagnosis and treatment plan system of Colley to integrate the imaging system and analysis of Takeyama with the motivation of increasing patient outcomes by improving treatment result through diagnosis support information being tracked through a treatment plan (see: Takeyama, paragraph 12).
CLAIM 8-
Claim 8 is significantly similar to claim 1 and is rejected upon the same prior art as claim 1.
CLAIM 9-
Colley in view of Takeyama teach the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 9, Colley further teaches:
causing an X-ray computed tomography scanning apparatus to scan the object, which is a patient, to generate the medical image of the patient; and (Colley teaches that an X-ray may be obtained (using a machine) to model the patient and is then sent to the system (para [1060]))
automatically analyzing, by a machine learning model, the medical image to generate the analysis information indicating the analysis result (Colley teaches using artificial intelligence to analyze the results (para [3107, 2591]))
CLAIM 10-
Colley in view of Takeyama teach the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 10, Colley further teaches:
wherein the step of generating the pre-order comprises generating the pre-order to include the imaging order for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan; and (Colley teaches the use of MRI scans to generate images before analysis is completed (para [2644]))
Colley does not explicitly teach, however Takeyama teaches:
the method further comprises causing an MRI scanning apparatus to scan the patient, after approval of the pre-order (Takeyama teaches that the treatment plan including imaging scans such as MRI are considered as part of the progress of care and rely on approval by the use of “non-approval” or “approval” (para [0102, 0090, 0098, 0136 0211]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the diagnosis and treatment plan system of Colley to integrate the imaging system and analysis of Takeyama with the motivation of increasing patient outcomes by improving treatment result through diagnosis support information being tracked through a treatment plan (see: Takeyama, paragraph 12).
CLAIM 11-
Colley in view of Takeyama teach the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 11, Colley further teaches:
wherein the step of generating the pre-order comprises generating the pre-order to include the treatment order, which includes instructions to administer a drug to the patient; and the method further comprises administering the drug to the patient, after approval of the pre-order. (Colley teaches that the treatment regimens are administered to patients and includes summarized medical data of adverse events (i.e., instructions on use) (para [1704]))
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 2/5/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the 101 rejection, these arguments are partially persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed invention includes a practical application of claims 1-10. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claimed invention does not provide an improvement to technology nor an improvement to machine learning and is dissimilar from Des Jardins and Enfish. All additional elements were analyzed under proper USPTO guidelines.
The functions argued are representative of the abstract idea. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality that amount to a practical application. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to a technical problem presented by combining the two. In the present case, the claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the identified abstract idea(s) in the rejection into a patent-eligible application of that idea.
Further, not every claim that recites concrete, tangible components escapes the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry. (See, e.g., Alice, 134). It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components that are generic is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. In order to amount to an inventive concept, the components must involve more than performance of “’well-understood, routine, conventional activities’ previously known to the industry.” (Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)). The originally filed specification was investigated and found to support this conclusion.
Claim 11 has a practical application as it is similar to Classen wherein a treatment is effected.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the 103 rejection, these arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues that a pre-order is not similar to the order recited in Colley. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, Colley teaches treatment orders as it teaches treatments to be authorized based on diagnostic testing which reads on the pre-order definition of an imaging or treatment order. Colley teaches that authorization may be needed when reporting an order (paragraphs 1966, 1224, 1293, 3102). Takeyama also teaches ordering of treatment plans and under broadest reasonable interpretation, the requesting of a treatment plan that includes imaging and treatment options that require authorization is a pre-order. The first processing circuitry in the specification controls the various functions of the system and is a generic processing unit (Figure 1) and functions under broadest reasonable interpretation as the statistical processor in Figure 44 of Takeyama and the processing apparatus in paragraphs 1880-1881 of Colley.
The dependent claims rely on the arguments of the independent claims and are rejected for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Morishima (US 20150379217 A1) teaches using medical orders for authorization in imaging.
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 KIMBERLY A SASS whose telephone number is (571)272-4774. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-5PM (EST).
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, JASON DUNHAM can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
/K.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JASON B DUNHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights