DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Objection is withdrawn in view of the current amendments.
Regarding the arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the below rejection, the analysis of 35 USC 101 under Step 2A Prong 1 has been updated in view of the current amendments.
Applicant further argues that the claims are analogous to Diehr and McRO in that the claims involve calculations/processes, however the claims improve a technology process. Examiner asserts that Diehr and McRO recite specific, technology improvements, however the instant application reciting the generation of the overlays for the live endoscopic image does not recite a specific technology improvement that would demonstrate the improvement as noted in [0067] of the Applicant’s Specification. Use of the display to merely superimpose the guidance and recommended information recites mere computer implementation as there is no recitation of a specific algorithm or technique to perform this real-time rendering overlay in a dynamic manner to demonstrate a technical improvement related to the operation of the endoscope system. [0050, 0051] further recites the action of superimposing the recommended action information and guidance frame, however this recites merely the use of the displayed user interface in a generic manner to present the information on the image feed in real time in the computing environment. Use of the generic computer components to perform an apparent improvement such as not obscuring clinically relevant image regions does not recite an improvement, see MPEP 2106.05(a)II, particularly “Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”
Applicant further argues that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea, in that the features of the claims are not conventional or generic, but represent a technical solution. As noted in the Step 2B part of the analysis as shown below, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and recites well understood, routine, and conventional activity. Use of the display for overlaying the information for integrating the guidance does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception
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 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
It is appropriate for the Examiner to determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test as recited in the following Steps: 1, 2A, and 2B, see MPEP 2106(III.).
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 1:
First, the Examiner is to establish whether the claim falls within any statutory category including a process, a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, see MPEP 2106.03(II.) and MPEP 2106.03(I).
Claims 1-11, 14-20 are related to a system, and claim 12 is also related to a method (i.e., a process). Claim 13 recites a storage medium where it is defined as SSD or HDD (which are interpreted to be non-transitory media) as shown in [0029] of Applicant’s Specification. Accordingly, these claims are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong One:
Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test demonstrates whether a clam is directed to a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(I.). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, where Prong One establishes the judicial exception. Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes, see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(1.) and 2106.04(a)(2).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea as underlined in the following limitations. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A medical assistance system comprising:
at least one processor comprising hardware; and
a storage unit configured to store at least examination history information of an endoscopic examination for a patient being examined and examination history information of an endoscopic examination of at least one reference patient other than the patient being examined,
wherein the at least one processor, by executing a program, is configured to:
acquire lesion identification information including the result of identifying a lesion confirmed in a current endoscopic examination of the patient being examined;
acquire, from the storage unit, examination history information including an examination type and, an examination interval, and the result of identifying the lesion from a diagnosis history for a past endoscopic examination of the patient being examined; and
compare the lesion identification information and the examination history information with a predetermined determination criterion that is included in examination history information of the at least one reference patient and that includes the examination type, the examination interval, and the result of identifying the lesion as conditions;
output recommended action information including a recommended action for the result of identifying the lesion confirmed in the current endoscopic examination;
generate a guidance frame based on the lesion identification information to be displayed to surround the lesion in a superimposed manner on an endoscopic image of the patient being examined that is displayed in real time on a monitor; and
display the recommend action information in a superimposed manner on the endoscopic image near the guidance frame.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing interactions between people as the following abstract limitations recite displaying recommended action information:
“compare” the lesion identification information and the examination history information with a predetermined determination criterion that is included in examination history information of the at least one reference patient and that includes the examination type, the examination interval, and the result of identifying the lesion as conditions, which are abstract limitations of evaluation of the information by using abstract determination criterion as described,
“output” recommended action information including a recommended action for the result of identifying the lesion confirmed in the current endoscopic examination, which is an abstract limitation of analysis of the examination data to make a judgment for the recommended action and to then perform an interaction of presenting the action to a user,
“generate” a guidance frame based on the lesion identification information, which recites abstract limitation of a presentation of information via a guidance frame based on the identification information that is presented to a user,
“display” the recommend action information, which recites abstract limitations of presenting the recommended action information with the guidance frame to a user.
The claim limitations as a whole recite displaying recommended action information, which recites social activity steps for the management of the health of the patient and therefore recite managing interactions between people and is a certain method of organizing human activity.
The abstract idea recited in claims 12-14 are similar to that of claim 1.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., processor) and will be discussed in further detail below.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fails to make the abstract idea any less abstract as noted below:
Claims 2 and 15 recites further abstract detail of the predetermined determination criterion as being created based on accumulated data of past endoscopic examinations, further describing the abstract idea. Claims 3 and 16 recite further abstract detail of the predetermined determination criterion being created based on exam history information of a reference patient, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 4 recites abstract limitations of “selecting” exam history info of a reference patient and the lesion identification information and then generating the action information as described, further describing the abstract idea. Claims 5 and 17 recite further abstract detail of the predetermined determination criterion is created based on statistical information of exam history information of the reference patients, further describing the abstract idea. Claims 6 and 18 recites abstract limitations of “selecting” exam history info of a reference patient and the lesion identification information and then generating the action information and aggregating history as claimed, further describing the abstract idea. Claims 7 and 19 recite further abstract limitations of “selecting” diagnostic action progress pattern information with the largest number of counted patients when the pattern information matches the conditions for the exam history info of the patient as described, further describing the abstract idea. Claims 8 and 20 recites abstract limitations of “selecting examination history information as described, further describing the abstract idea. Claim 11 recites the outputting of an examination report describing a matter to be handed over that is based on the recommended action, further describing the abstract idea.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrates the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exceptions into a “practical application,” see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(2.) and 2106.04(d)(I.).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
Regarding claim 1:
A medical assistance system comprising:
at least one processor comprising hardware; and
a storage unit configured to store at least examination history information of an endoscopic examination for a patient being examined and examination history information of an endoscopic examination of at least one reference patient other than the patient being examined (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.),
wherein the at least one processor, by executing a program, is configured to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
acquire lesion identification information including the result of identifying a lesion confirmed in a current endoscopic examination of the patient being examined (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Symantec);
acquire, from the storage unit, examination history information including an examination type and, an examination interval, and the result of identifying the lesion from a diagnosis history for a past endoscopic examination of the patient being examined; and (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.)
compare the lesion identification information and the examination history information with a predetermined determination criterion that is included in examination history information of the at least one reference patient and that includes the examination type, the examination interval, and the result of identifying the lesion as conditions;
output recommended action information including a recommended action for the result of identifying the lesion confirmed in the current endoscopic examination;
generate a guidance frame based on the lesion identification information to be displayed to surround the lesion in a superimposed manner on an endoscopic image of the patient being examined that is displayed in real time on a monitor (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and
display the recommend action information in a superimposed manner on the endoscopic image near the guidance frame (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of the overall medical assistance system comprising at least one processor comprising hardware, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform steps and the use of the monitor to display the frame in real time and superimposing the frames on top of the endoscopic image, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0020] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the overall generic computing system. [0028] recites the use of generic processing hardware. [0050] of Applicant’s specification recites the output as merely part of a display element and in real time, however this recites merely using a video feed from a monitor to present the information. [0050, 0051] further recites the action of superimposing the recommended action information and guidance frame, however this recites merely the use of the displayed user interface in a generic manner to present the information on the image feed in real time in the computing environment. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Further, claim 13 recites the use of a storage medium and modules to carry out the method as further described in [0029], however this further recites mere computer implementation of the abstract idea. Claim 14 further recites the system as being a medical control device as described in [0024], however the use of the generic processor and other generic computing components is not significant as previously analyzed.
Regarding the additional limitations of a storage unit configured to store at least examination history information of an endoscopic examination for a patient being examined and examination history information of an endoscopic examination of at least one reference patient other than the patient being examined, acquire lesion identification information including the result of identifying a lesion confirmed in a current endoscopic examination of the patient being examined, and acquire, from the storage unit, examination history information including an examination type and, an examination interval, and the result of identifying the lesion from a diagnosis history for a past endoscopic examination of the patient being examined, these are merely pre-solution activities. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). [0034] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the acquiring of lesion identification information from the diagnosis device. [0029, 0032] recites the acquiring of the examination history information from storage. [0029] recites further the storage unit where the information is gathered from. The action of acquiring the information is used to perform actions for the system including data gathering for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activities.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to output recommended action for a lesion, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, see MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set below:
Claims 3 and 16 recite additional elements further describing the acquired examination history information, however this still recites insignificant pre-solution activity. Claim 4 recites the use of a generic storage unit component for storing the history information, further describing the pre-solution activity. Claims 6 and 18 recites the use of a generic storage unit component for storing the pattern information, further describing the pre-solution activity. Claims 7 and 19 recite further detail of the acquired pattern information, further describing the pre-solution activity. Claims 8 and 20 recite further detail of the acquired history information, further describing the pre-solution activity. Claim 9 recites further detail of the acquired lesion identifying information, further describing the pre-solution activity. Claim 11 recites the use of a generic computing monitor to merely display the recommended action in the form of an examination report, further describing the generic computer implementation.
Thus, taken alone and in ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, the independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(II.). Further, it may need to be established, when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, that the additional elements recite well understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding the additional limitation of the overall medical assistance system comprising at least one processor comprising hardware, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform steps and the use of the monitor to display the frame in real time and superimposing the frames on top of the endoscopic image, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [0020] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the overall generic computing system. [0028] recites the use of generic processing hardware. [0050] of Applicant’s specification recites the output as merely part of a display element and in real time, however this recites merely using a video feed from a monitor to present the information. [0050, 0051] further recites the action of superimposing the recommended action information and guidance frame, however this recites merely the use of the displayed user interface in a generic manner to present the information on the image feed in real time in the computing environment. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Further, claim 13 recites the use of a storage medium and modules to carry out the method as further described in [0029], however this further recites mere computer implementation of the abstract idea. Claim 14 further recites the system as being a medical control device as described in [0024], however the use of the generic processor and other generic computing components is not significant as previously analyzed and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding the additional limitations of a storage unit configured to store at least examination history information of an endoscopic examination for a patient being examined and examination history information of an endoscopic examination of at least one reference patient other than the patient being examined, acquire lesion identification information including the result of identifying a lesion confirmed in a current endoscopic examination of the patient being examined, and acquire, from the storage unit, examination history information including an examination type and, an examination interval, and the result of identifying the lesion from a diagnosis history for a past endoscopic examination of the patient being examined, these are merely pre-solution activities. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and “Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information”). [0034] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the acquiring of lesion identification information from the diagnosis device. [0029, 0032] recites the acquiring of the examination history information from storage. [0029] recites further the storage unit where the information is gathered from. The action of acquiring the information is used to perform actions for the system including data gathering for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activities and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The acquiring of lesion identification information forwarded from another device and acquiring of examination history information from memory storage recites well understood, routine, and conventional activities.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and therefore claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS whose telephone number is (571)272-6719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-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 B 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.
/CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights