DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, 16-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/6/2026 has been entered.
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 .
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, 3-5, 8, 10, 12-13, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaser (US20160092656 in view of Terai (US20200243177).
As per claim 1, Glaser teaches a method for creating a medical report, the medical report being indicative of a follow-up examination of a patient, the method comprising
receiving a selection of at least one reference report text of the patient, wherein the reference report text has at least one reference data element associated with a software-implemented mark-up element (para. 16: user can select a report template), wherein the mark-up element is at least one of: a node element of a hierarchical graph identifying a location within a hierarchical structure, or an annotation element indicative of a medical annotation, and wherein the mark-up element comprises a marker indicating that the at least one reference data element requires input in the follow-up examination (Fig. 2A & 3; para. 52: medical report generation with reports having a hierarchical data structure with data fields; placeholder field displayed to user requesting input);
creating a partial follow-up report text, having at least an empty data element, associated with the mark-up element (Fig. 2A & 3; para. 52: medical report generation with reports having a hierarchical data structure with data fields; placeholder field displayed to user requesting input);
displaying the created partial follow-up report text (Fig. 3: report displayed to user);
displaying a call-to-action element indicating a value of the corresponding reference data element (Fig. 4; para. 44-45: user interface displays placeholder field for content to be inserted into placeholder fields via image display; image display indicates values to be inserted into placeholder);
receiving an input element in response to the displayed call-to-action element (Fig. 4; para. 44-45 user selects data to be inserted into placeholder field);
and
creating the follow-up report text based on the partial follow-up report text and the received input element, wherein the created follow-up report text has at least the input element associated with the mark-up element, at the same node element of the hierarchical graph when the mark-up element is the node element, or with the same annotation element indicative of a medical concept in a medical ontology when the mark-up element is the annotation element (Fig. 2C & 4; para. 42, 44-45: system creates report with data inserted into various placeholder fields that are associated with hierarchical data table).
Glaser does not expressly teach displaying a call-to-action element based at least on the received selection of reference report text, the call-to-action element requesting input.
Terai, however, teaches to a medical report generating method where a user interface is displayed to the user and an element is displayed to user requesting input for a specific field (Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Terai with Glaser based on the motivation of prevent the image interpreting doctor from overlooking the update candidate items while generating the current medical report. (Terai – para. 58).
As per claim 3, Glaser and Terai teach the method according to claim 1. Glaser teaches further comprising:
receiving user input in the displayed follow-up report text (Fig. 4; para. 44-45 user selects data to be inserted into placeholder field); and
establishing an association between the received user input and the at least one reference data element (Fig. 2C & 4; para. 42, 44-45: system creates report with data inserted into various placeholder fields that are associated with hierarchical data table),
wherein the displaying of the call-to-action element is further based on the established association (Fig. 2C & 4; para. 42, 44-45: system creates report with data inserted into various placeholder fields that are associated with hierarchical data table).
As per claim 4, Glaser and Terai teach the method according to claim 1. Glaser does not expressly teach further comprising: generating a graphical or textual indication, indicative of a temporal evolution, the evolution comprising at least the reference data element and the input element.
Terai, however, teaches to the system determines whether update has been performed and changes element display (para. 124).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 5, Glaser and Terai teach the method according to claim 1. Glaser does not expressly teach wherein the received selection comprises multiple reference reports.
Terai, however, teaches to where medical reports obtained using patient id (para. 41).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 8, Glaser and Terai teach the method according to claim 1. Glaser does not expressly teach wherein the call-to-action element comprises a graphical instruction or an audio instruction.
Terai, however, teaches to a pop up display element with graphical text (Fig. 13).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 10, Glaser and Terai teach the method according to claim 1. Terai teaches wherein the call-to-action element is further configured to display one or more multimedia elements associated with the reference data element (Fig. 4; para. 44-45: user interface displays placeholder field for content to be inserted into placeholder fields via image display; image display indicates values to be inserted into placeholder).
As per claim 12, Glaser and Terai teach the method according to claim 10. Glaser teaches wherein the one or more multimedia elements comprise a picture element of a medical image recording associated with the reference data element in the at least one selected reference report text (Fig. 4; para. 44-45: user interface displays placeholder field for content to be inserted into placeholder fields via image display; image display indicates values to be inserted into placeholder).
As per claim 13, Glaser and Terai teach the method according to claim 12. Glaser teaches further comprising: loading, responsive to the reception of the selection, the medical image recording element (Fig. 4; para. 44-45: user interface displays placeholder field for content to be inserted into placeholder fields via image display; image display indicates values to be inserted into placeholder).
As per claim 16, Glaser and Terai teach the method according to claim 12. Glaser does not expressly teach wherein receiving of the input element comprises receiving one or more of the following:
one or more keystrokes from a keyboard device;
one or more touch commands from a touch-sensitive device;
one or more clicks from a pointing input device;
a vocal command from an audio capture device; or
an input command from a virtual reality device or augmented reality device.
Terai, however, teaches to a mouse input device (para. 51);
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
As per claim 18, Glaser teaches a computer system for creating a follow-up medical report, the follow-up medical report being indicative of a follow-up examination of a patient, the system comprising:
a processing unit (claim 16: processor);
an input receiving unit to receive input from a user and to communicate the input to the processing unit (claim 16: computer receiving input); and
a displaying unit configured to display information to the user (claim 16: computer outputting data),
wherein the processing unit is configured to:
receive, with the input receiving unit, a selection of at least one reference report text of the patient, wherein the reference report text has at least one reference data element associated with a software-implemented mark-up element, wherein the mark-up element is at least one of: a node element of a hierarchical graph identifying a location within a hierarchical structure, or an annotation element indicative of a medical annotation, and wherein the mark-up element comprises a marker indicating that the at least one reference data element requires input in the follow-up examination (Fig. 2A & 3; para. 52: medical report generation with reports having a hierarchical data structure with data fields; placeholder field displayed to user requesting input);
create a partial follow-up report text, having at least an empty data element, associated with the mark-up element (Fig. 2A & 3; para. 52: medical report generation with reports having a hierarchical data structure with data fields; placeholder field displayed to user requesting input);
display, with the displaying unit, the created partial follow-up report text (Fig. 3: report displayed to user);
displaying a call-to-action element indicating a value of the corresponding reference data element (Fig. 4; para. 44-45: user interface displays placeholder field for content to be inserted into placeholder fields via image display; image display indicates values to be inserted into placeholder);
receiving an input element in response to the displayed call-to-action element (Fig. 4; para. 44-45 user selects data to be inserted into placeholder field);
creating the follow-up report text based on the partial follow-up report text and the received input element, wherein the created follow-up report text has at least the input element associated with the mark-up element, at the same node element of the hierarchical graph when the mark-up element is the node element, or with the same annotation element indicative of a medical concept in a medical ontology when the mark-up element is the annotation element (Fig. 2C & 4; para. 42, 44-45: system creates report with data inserted into various placeholder fields that are associated with hierarchical data table).
Glaser does not expressly teach displaying a call-to-action element based at least on the received selection of reference report text, the call-to-action element requesting input.
Terai, however, teaches to a medical report generating method where a user interface is displayed to the user and an element is displayed to user requesting input for a specific field (Fig. 13).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaser and Terai as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Kuhn (US20060004745).
As per claim 6, Glaser and Terai teach the method according to claim 5, but do not expressly teach wherein the multiple reference reports have a common structure.
Kuhn, however, teaches to storing and obtaining multiple reports in a common structured format (para. 110).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Kuhn with Glaser and Terai based on the motivation of providing improved methods and systems for creating and sharing structured reports (Kuhn – para. 6).
As per claim 7, Glaser and Terai teach the method according to claim 5, but do not expressly teach wherein a first reference report from the multiple reference reports has a first structure and a second reference report from the multiple reference reports has a second structure, the first and second structures not being identical.
Kuhn, however, teaches to storing and obtaining multiple reports in a common structured format (para. 110). Kuhn also teaches to obtaining structured reports in different formats and converting the reports in a single common format (para. 47).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 14, and incorporated herein.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glaser and Terai as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Buurman (WO2009007909A1)
As per claim 11, Glaser and Terai teach the method according to claim 10, but do not expressly teach wherein the one or more multimedia elements comprise a picture element of a graph indicative of a temporal evolution of the reference data element.
Buurman, however, teaches to grouping of measurements for clinical reporting where a display interface extracts historical measurements and outputs the measurements via a table (Figs. 2 & 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Buurman with Glaser and Terai based on the motivation of providing a useful way of identifying potentially relevant information comprised in a plurality of medical reports (Buurman – pg. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection on pages 7-11 in regards to claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, 16-18 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that:
Glaser does not expressly teach a “reference report text of the patient” that was previously created specific to a patient
The Examiner, however, asserts that Applicant is arguing limitations that are not described in the claims. Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims - In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (CA FC 1993.
Glaser does not expressly teach a mark-up element comprising a reference data element requires input in the follow-up examination.
The Examiner, however, asserts that Applicant is arguing limitations that are not described in the claims as the claims do not describe the content of the reference report text or the reference data element. Glaser teaches to displaying fields requesting user input and selection from a reference dataset (para. 52).
Glaser does not expressly teach displaying a call-to-action element indicating a value of the corresponding reference data element.
The Examiner, however, asserts that Applicant is arguing limitations that are not described in the claims as the claims do not describe the content of the reference report text or the reference data element. Glaser teaches user interface displays placeholder field for content to be inserted into placeholder fields via image display; image display indicates values to be inserted into placeholder (para. 44-45, 52).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Glaser and Terai.
The Examiner, however, asserts that the combination of Glaser and Terai is proper based on Rationale G established in KSR v. Teleflex. Office personnel must articulate the following: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. Glaser teaches to a user interacts with a medical imaging system and a medical reporting system to prepare a medical report. The medical reporting system includes report templates for medical reports. Terai teaches to generating a first medical report serving as a current medical report on the basis of the past medical report and to identify at least one update candidate item that needs to be updated in the first medical report. Terai also teaches to using templates as a basis for medical report generation. Glaser is adaptable to the system described in Terai without a significant change in Glaser – still collection and generation of medical reports for a patient. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Terai with Glaser based on the motivation of prevent the image interpreting doctor from overlooking the update candidate items while generating the current medical report. (Terai – para. 58). Therefore, the motivation to combine Glaser with Terai was proper.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Walker (US20080109250) teaches to the assembly and communications of a generic reporting engine for offering clinical structured reports using the Internet in an encrypted manner is provided. This method of rendering structured reports employs a DICOM Structured Reporting (SR) software database engine that maps clinical report data into a clinical structured reporting data format.
Martin (US20090326985) teaches to accessing clinical data and its transfer to and from a health care provider within a clinical setting. In particular, the invention involves delivery of clinical data after its completion into an automatically pre-populated templated daily progress note.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights