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 .
Response to Amendment
The following Office action in response to communications received July 1, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 3 has been canceled. Therefore, claims 1-2 and 4-13 are pending and addressed below.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC § 103, rejections set forth in the previous office action dated January 2, 2026.
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 1-2 and 4-13 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. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Independent claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of classifying visual findings, determining clinical rankings based on a first classification list and a second classification list, comparing ranking values, selecting a clinical ranking, and organizing a worklist according to the clinical ranking.
Claim 1 recites providing visual findings in anatomical images; providing a first classification list to associate a first clinical ranking with priority findings; receiving a second classification list that is user configurable; assigning a clinical ranking using the first and second classification lists; obtaining a first ranking value and a second ranking value; providing the second ranking value as the assigned clinical ranking only if the second ranking value is equal to or higher than the first ranking value; forming triage data; generating an output representing a re-ordered worklist; and displaying the output to reflect detected user interaction.
The claim recites mental processes. The limitations of associating a first clinical ranking, assigning a clinical ranking, obtaining a first ranking value, obtaining a second ranking value, comparing whether the second ranking value is equal to or higher than the first ranking value, and selecting the second ranking value if the stated condition is met are evaluations, judgments, comparisons, and selections that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
The claim also recites a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations of combining priority findings and assigned clinical rankings to form triage data and generating an output representing a re-ordered worklist manage the sequence in which clinical findings or medical studies are presented for clinical review. In substance, the claim organizes a clinical workflow based on assigned rankings.
But for the additional elements discussed below, the claim is directed to using a default classification list and a user-configurable classification list, determining two ranking values, selecting the second ranking value only when it is equal to or higher than the first ranking value, and organizing a clinical worklist based on the selected ranking.
Claim 2 further recites that the second classification list takes precedence over the first classification list. This limitation further recites a comparison and selection rule for clinical rankings.
Claim 4 recites that triage data includes an indication of one selected category of priority findings. Claim 5 recites using triage data to update a user’s worklist. Claim 6 recites configuring the worklist update to use a selected category of priority findings. These limitations continue to recite selection, classification, and clinical-workflow management.
Claims 7 and 8 recite providing triage data in JSON format and converting triage data to HL7 format. Claims 9 and 10 recite visual findings and associated first clinical ranking from a server module to an integration layer module, including use of a WebSockets protocol. Claim 11 recites a database for storing triage data for a period configurable by the user. These limitations add generic formatting, conversion, transmission, storage, and configuration functions to the abstract clinical-ranking and worklist-management activity.
Claims 12 and 13 recite a processor, a computer-readable storage medium, and instructions for carrying out the method of claim 1. These claims are directed at the same abstract idea as claim 1 because they recite generic computer components configured to execute the abstract process.
The claims recite additional elements including anatomical images, a convolutional neural network component, a user system, a user interface, a user interface element, a server module, an integration layer module, a database, a processor, computer-readable storage media, JSON, HL7, and a WebSockets protocol. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and use generic computing and communications technology to receive data, receive user interaction, monitor user interaction, generate findings, associate rankings, store triage data, format data, convert data, transmit data, update a worklist, and display an output.
The specification describes computing systems as including conventional personal computer architectures and other general-purpose hardware platforms (see page 18 || 14-32). The specification states that physical processors may include general-purpose CPUs, digital signal processors, GPUs, and other hardware devices suitable for executing programs and algorithms. The specification also states that software may include open-source or commercially available operating-system software with application and service programs.
The claimed convolutional neural network component is recited only as generating visual findings. The CNN component is merely used to produce information for the subsequent classification, ranking, comparison, and worklist-management activity.
The claimed anatomical images likewise provide the subject matter to which the abstract ranking and worklist-management rules are applied. Claim 1 does not recite an improvement to image acquisition, reconstruction, storage, transmission, analysis, etc.
The recited user interface receives a second classification list, monitors user interaction, and displays a re-ordered worklist. Claim 1 does not recite a particular interface architecture or a technical improvement in user-interface operation. The interface is used to receive input and present the result of the abstract clinical-ranking and workflow-management activity. The claims do not recite an improvement to any of those technologies.
The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims do not recite an improvement to the operation of a computer, network, database, user interface, CNN, neural network, image-processing architecture, JSON format, HL7 format, or WebSockets protocol.
Considered as an ordered combination, the claims use a CNN component to provide visual findings, use a default classification list and a user-configurable classification list to determine ranking values, select a second ranking value only when it is equal to or higher than a first ranking value, generate triage data, reorder a worklist, and use generic computing and networking technology to communicate, store, and display the results. This combination does not recite a technological improvement or an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, claims 1-2 and 4–13 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C.101.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The following subject matter is not shown by the prior art of record: “obtaining a first ranking value for a priority finding using the first classification list, obtaining a second ranking value for said priority finding using the second classification list, and providing the second ranking value as the assigned clinical ranking only if the second ranking value is equal to or higher than the first ranking value.” Further, the prior art of record does not show the above limitation in combination with: “the first classification list being a default priority list that is fixed and non-adjustable,” and “the second classification list is user configurable.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on July 1, 2026 with respect to argument in the remarks, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the new limitations added to Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pub. No.: US 20150142475 A1; The combination of servers allows for modular construction of monitoring from widgets that allow arbitrary display and graphing of data from arbitrary data streams. Modular construction of monitors is provided by using layouts and modular, re-useable widgets for physiological data and other metrics of health, which may or may not be calculated from other physiological data. The professional user, such as a physician, can define their own customized monitor using the modular construction of monitoring. This can be applied on a patient-by-patient basis. Embodiments provide for real-time transcoding of CRF data format to formats such as JSON, HTML, XML, TXT, and HL7 as well as other data formats as desired, and provide the ability to decode and encode the CRF format into various other formats. This allows HL7 integration into an internal data stream. HL7 messages can be decoded into the CRF format and be processed like every other data frame in the system. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD B WINSTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-7780. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1030 to 1830.
Pub. No.: US 20220414865 A1; Systems and methods for determining a concordance between results of medical assessments are provided. Results of a medical assessment of a first type for an anatomical object of a patient and results of a medical assessment of a second type for the anatomical object are received. The results of the medical assessment of the first type are converted to a hemodynamic measure. A concordance analysis between the results of the medical assessment of the first type and the results of the medical assessment of the second type based on the hemodynamic measure is performed. Results of the concordance analysis are output.
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 EDWARD B WINSTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-7780. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1030 to 1830.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773. 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.
/E.B.W/ Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights