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 .
DETAILED ACTION
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to as ineligible under subject eligibility test. In the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, dated Tuesday, December 16, 2014, page 74621), The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional device elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1 & 8-9
Step 1
This step inquires “is the claim to a process, article of machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes,
Claim 8 – “Method” is a process.
Claims 1 & 9 - “Devices” or “Non-Transitory CRM” are machines.
Step 2A - Prong 1
This step inquires “does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or natural phenomenon”. This claim appears to directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation of “detect a position of an endoscope; estimate a withdrawal speed of the endoscope based on the position of the endoscope; and display information indicating a region of interest, which is a region where the withdrawal speed was equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value, on a display device based on the position of the endoscope and the withdrawal speed.”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions” language, “detecting, estimating, displaying” in the context of this claim encompasses covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity).
STEP 2A – PRONG 1 - CONCLUSION
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2
This step inquires “does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites two additional element – using a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to perform “detecting, estimating, displaying” steps. The a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor) “detect a position of an endoscope; estimate a withdrawal speed of the endoscope based on the position of the endoscope; and display information indicating a region of interest, which is a region where the withdrawal speed was equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value, on a display device based on the position of the endoscope and the withdrawal speed.” such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
STEP 2A – PRONG 2 - CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The critical inquiry here is does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception? The claim does 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, the additional element of using a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to perform “detecting, estimating, displaying” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
As to claim 2, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“determining whether a lesion exists from an image can be performed by a human visually reviewing images and deciding lesion/ no lesion, then applying the rule “flag region if fast + lesion””) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“displaying as the region of interest; image analysis to decide lesion presence”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 3, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“choosing to present one category differently than another is organizational/presentation decision a human can do (e.g. highlight/label)”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“how results are presented i.e. post-solution output”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 4, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“a human can overlay/mark regions of interest on a diagram/model of the organ.”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“Primarily visualization/presentation of results (overlay display) which is typical extra solution activity”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 5, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“listing/labeling regions using characters (text)”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“reporting/presenting”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 6, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“computing a ratio from counts and presenting it is a classic pen and paper calculation”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“computing the ratio is data calculation/analysis; displaying the ratio is IESA”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 7, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), and insignificant extra-solution activity (“post solution output timing – displaying the result just delayed.”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
CONCLUSION
No prior art has been found for claims 1-9 in their current form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675