DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/28/2026 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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendments, claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In light of the amendments, claims 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
In light of the amendments, claims 10-11 and 16-18 do not have art rejections.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 07/16/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1, 7, 13, and 20 have been amended; claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-19 remain unchanged; and claim 21 has been added.
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 07/20/2023
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Step 2A, Prong One:
Applicant states that the previous arguments included in the response filed January 24, 2026 are still valid. Examiner would like to note that there are no arguments with that date. Any of Applicant’s previous arguments where Examiner has responded to (and are unaffected by amendments) are maintained.
Applicant further argues that the claims do not recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Applicant states Examiner did not provide reasoning as to why the claims are directed towards this category, nor has Examiner explained why generating a report based on image study data by following rules or instructions corresponds with interactions between people. Examiner however respectfully disagrees as Examiner stated what the claims equate to with respect to human activity. The statement of generating a report in the manner reflect by the abstract idea is a statement which corresponds to methods steps that can be defined as human activity as humans could perform these steps.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Applicant states that the claims are integrated into a practical application. Applicant argues that there is an improvement to a technology and points to the specification for support. Applicant states that there is a more flexible integration of automated communicating of clinical outcomes into existing work, therefore there is an improvement to automated communicating of clinical outcomes. Examiner however respectfully disagrees that this is a technical problem and a technical solution to that problem. The improvement to providing data is to provide different data?
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant argues with respect to the previously-y cited Lobodzinski reference. This reference is no longer relied upon however.
Additionally, Applicant argues with respect to Schwartzbard and states that the previous “selecting” step of the independent claims is not taught. Applicant disagrees that the presentation parameters of Schwartzbard could somehow be interpreted as a template video script as it does not teach “encoded instructions for image processing” or “at least one video template structure relating to a video sequence”. Examiner however respectfully disagrees as the “encoded instructions for image processing” is being taught. It is also taught in the newly-cited Pelissier et al. reference as well in paragraphs [0054] and [0090].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 21 recites that there is a plurality of optionally activable video template structures included in the at least one video template structure. Paragraph [0071] of the specification however explains that the these video template structures themselves are activable. Therefore, each structure is activable rather than including a plurality of optionally activable video template structures. Due to this, Examiner questions whether Applicant had possession over the claimed invention at the time of filing.
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 1-21 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 1-12 and 14-21 are drawn to a method and claim 13 is drawn to a system, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-21 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer 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 (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method for providing a medical video report, the computer-implemented method comprising:
1) receiving a medical image study of a patient;
2) determining, based on the medical image study, context information pertaining to the medical image study;
3) selecting, based on the context information, a template video script from a) a repository of a plurality of candidate template video scripts, each candidate template video script including
encoded instructions for image processing of a corresponding medical image study to generate b) a video relating to the corresponding medical image study for a human recipient and
c) at least one video template structure relating to a video sequence;
4) executing the selected template video script on the medical image study to generate the medical video report; and
5) providing the medical video report.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) receiving a medical image study of a patient, 2) determining, based on the medical image study, context information pertaining to the medical image study, 3) selecting, based on the context information, a template video script from a plurality of candidate template video scripts, each candidate template video script including encoded instructions for image processing of a corresponding medical image study to generate content relating to the corresponding medical image study for a human recipient, and at least one video template structure relating to a video sequence, 4) executing the selected template video script on the medical image study to generate the medical video report, and 5) providing the medical video report. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how to generate a report based on image study data in a manner in which people can do. Independent claim 13 recites similar limitations and is also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 2-12 and 14-21 include all of the limitations of claim 1, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 2, 4, 6-11, 16-18, and 20-21 add additional, functional steps to the claims without adding additional elements. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 3, 5, 12, 14-15, and 19 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps nor additional elements. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 2-12 and 14-21 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) a repository (when computing hardware), b) video, c) at least one video template structure relating to a video sequence, d) an interface (in claim 13), and e) at least one processor (in claim 13) to perform the claimed steps.
The a) repository in these steps adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
The b) video in these steps generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as videography, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Additionally, the c) interface and d) at least one processor in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, paragraphs [0153] and [0155] where there are generic computing components for these elements, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
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, the additional elements of using a) a repository, b) video, c) at least one video template structure relating to a video sequence, d) an interface, and e) at least one processor to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity), a general linking to a particular technological field, and mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(d), MPEP 2106.05(f), and MPEP 2106.05(h) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The a) repository in these steps add insignificant extra-solution activity/pre-solution activity in the form of WURC activity to the abstract idea. The following is an example of a court decision demonstrating computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives script data from a repository, and transmits the data to a computer over a network, for example the Internet.
The b) video and c) at least one video template structure relating to a video sequence generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The following represent an example that courts have identified as generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h)): Limiting the abstract idea data to videography, because limiting application of the abstract idea to video is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, e.g. see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.
Furthermore, the current invention provides a medical report utilizing d) an interface and e) at least one processor, thus these computing components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity, or a general linking to a particular technological field cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-21 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 13-15, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0226746 to Schwartzbard et al. in view of U.S. 2009/0287487 to Rossman et al. further in view of U.S. 2018/0189992 to Pelissier et al.
As per claim 1, Schwartzbard et al. teaches a computer-implemented method for providing a medical video report, the computer-implemented method comprising:
--receiving a medical image study of a patient; (see: paragraph [0069] where images are being received)
--determining, based on the medical image study, context information pertaining to the medical image study; (see: paragraph [0045] where there is determination of context information (candidate anomalous objects) based on the medical image study)
--selecting, based on the context information, a template video script from a plurality of candidate template video scripts, (see: paragraph [0045] where there is automating generation of an adapted presentation of one or more candidate medical. A script (grouping of presentation parameters) is selected here based on the anomalous objects (context information)) each candidate template video script including
--encoded instructions for image processing of a corresponding medical image study to generate a video relating to the corresponding medical image study for a human recipient; (see: paragraph [0045] where there are scripts defined as groupings of presentation parameters. The parameters here help generate a video relating to the received images as shown in paragraph [0133])
--executing the selected template video script on the medical image study to generate the medical video report; (see: paragraph [0045] where there is execution of a script (grouping of parameters) to generate a report/video) and
--providing the medical video report (see: paragraph [0133] where there is output of a video (report) created by rotation of the sub-set of the anatomical imaging according to the rotation angles).
Schwartzbard et al. may not further, specifically teach:
1) --selecting a template video script from a repository of a plurality of candidate template video scripts;
2) --each candidate template video script including at least one video template structure relating to a video sequence.
Rossman et al. teaches:
1) --selecting a template video script from a repository of a plurality of candidate template video scripts (see: paragraphs [0009] and [0010] where there is such a selection occurring. The scripts/template here edit(s) the image. The script being related to video was taught in the Schwartzbard et al. reference).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 1) select a template video script from a repository of a plurality of candidate template video scripts as taught by Rossman et al. in the method as taught by Schwartzbard et al. with the motivation(s) of being a way to store and access the information (see: paragraph [0004] of Rossman et al.).
Pelissier et al. teaches:
2) --each candidate template video script including at least one video template structure relating to a video sequence (see: FIGS. 2 and 3 and paragraph [0054] where there are candidate template video scripts where these scripts relate to sequences/animations).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein 2) each candidate template video script including at least one video template structure relating to a video sequence as taught by Pelissier et al. in the method as taught by Schwartzbard et al. and Rossman et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of providing an improved media production system (see: paragraph [0005] of Pelissier et al.).
As per claim 3, Schwartzbard et al., Rossman et al., and Pelissier et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Schwartzbard et al. further teaches:
--wherein the context information includes an indication of a medical finding of a defined finding type, (see: paragraph [0045] where the context information is an indication of a medical finding of a candidate anomalous objects) and
--the selected template video script encodes instructions for image processing of the medical image study to generate a video visualizing the medical finding of the defined finding type for the human recipient (see: paragraph [0045] where there is a video visualizing the medical finding (anomalous objects)).
As per claim 4, Schwartzbard et al., Rossman et al., and Pelissier et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Schwartzbard et al. further teaches
--wherein the plurality of candidate template video scripts respectively include a plurality of video template structures, each of the plurality of video template structures encoding instructions for providing a portion of a medical video report based on a medical image study, (see: paragraph [0045] where there are scripts which include groupings of presentation parameters (template structures). The parameters here help generate a video relating to the received images as shown in paragraph [0133]) and
--the executing includes
--activating, based on the context information, at least one video template structure from among the plurality of video template structures of the selected template video script, (see: paragraph [0045] where there are scripts which include groupings of presentation parameters (template structures). The parameters are not all of the parameters, therefore only the ones that are needed are being activated) and
--generating the medical video report based on executing the at least one activated video template structure (see: paragraph [0045] where there are scripts defined as groupings of presentation parameters. The parameters here help generate a video relating to the received images as shown in paragraph [0133]).
As per claim 5, Schwartzbard et al., Rossman et al., and Pelissier et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 4, see discussion of claim 4. Schwartzbard et al. further teaches
--wherein the plurality of video template structures of the selected template video script include finding-specific video template structures with instructions for visualizing a medical finding of a defined finding type, (see: paragraph [0045] where there is a video visualizing the medical finding (anomalous objects). Therefore there are template structures (parameters) which include instructions for visualizing a finding (anomalous object))
--the computer-implemented method further includes obtaining an indication of a medical finding of a given finding type based on at least one of the medical image study, the context information or supplementary information associated with the medical image study, (see: paragraph [0045] where the context information is an indication of a medical finding of a candidate anomalous objects) and
--the activating activates at least one finding-specific video template structure of the selected template video script, the defined finding type of which matches the given finding type (see: paragraph [0045] where there are scripts which include groupings of presentation parameters (template structures). The parameters are not all of the parameters, therefore only the ones that are needed are being activated).
As per claim 7, Schwartzbard et al., Rossman et al., and Pelissier et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Pelissier et al. further teaches the executing includes
--retrieving the video sequence related to the at least one video template structure from the repository, (see: FIGS. 2 and 3 and paragraph [0090] where there are sequences and then applied to the image from a database) and
--including the video sequence in the medical video report (see: paragraphs [0033] and [0034] where there is display of the media items (display of the report)).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 13, Schwartzbard et al. teaches a system to provide a medical video report, the system comprising:
--an interface configured to receive a medical image study of a patient and to provide the medical video report; (see: paragraph [0069] where images are being received. Also see: paragraph [0077] where there is a computing device with such an interface) and
--at least one processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions (see: paragraph [0074] where there is a processor an instructions) to cause the at least one processor to
--determine, based on the medical image study, context information pertaining to the medical image study, (see: paragraph [0045] where there is determination of context information (candidate anomalous objects) based on the medical image study)
--select, based on the context information, a template video script from a plurality of candidate template video scripts, (see: paragraph [0045] where there is automating generation of an adapted presentation of one or more candidate medical. A script (grouping of presentation parameters) is selected here based on the anomalous objects (context information)) each candidate template video script including
--encoded instructions for image processing of a corresponding medical image study to generate a video relating to the corresponding medical image study for a human recipient, (see: paragraph [0045] where there are scripts defined as groupings of presentation parameters. The parameters here help generate a video relating to the received images as shown in paragraph [0133]) and
--execute the selected template video script on the medical image study to generate the medical video report (see: paragraph [0133] where there is output of a video (report) created by rotation of the sub-set of the anatomical imaging according to the rotation angles).
Schwartzbard et al. may not further, specifically teach:
1) --select a template video script from a repository of a plurality of candidate template video scripts; and
2) --each candidate template video script including at least one video template structure relating to a video sequence.
Rossman et al. teaches:
1) --select a template video script from a repository of a plurality of candidate template video scripts (see: paragraphs [0009] and [0010] where there is such a selection occurring. The scripts/template here edit(s) the image. The script being related to video was taught in the Schwartzbard et al. reference).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 1) select a template video script from a repository of a plurality of candidate template video scripts as taught by Rossman et al. in the system as taught by Schwartzbard et al. with the motivation(s) of being a way to store and access the information (see: paragraph [0004] of Rossman et al.).
Pelissier et al. teaches:
2) --each candidate template video script including at least one video template structure relating to a video sequence (see: column 12, lines 22-47 where there is a video template structure related to video sequencing).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein 2) each candidate template video script including at least one video template structure relating to a video sequence as taught by Pelissier et al. in the system as taught by Schwartzbard et al. and Rossman et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of providing an improved media production system (see: paragraph [0005] of Pelissier et al.).
As per claim 14, Schwartzbard et al., Rossman et al., and Pelissier et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Schwartzbard et al. further teaches a non-transitory computer program product comprising program elements that induce a computer of a system to perform the method of claim 1, when the program elements are loaded into a memory of the computer (see: paragraph [0005] where there is a non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon. Also see: paragraph [0062] where the instructions are loaded onto a computer).
As per claim 15, Schwartzbard et al., Rossman et al., and Pelissier et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Schwartzbard et al. further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a system, cause the system to perform the method of claim 1 (see: paragraph [0005] where there is a non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon. Also see: paragraph [0062] where the instructions are loaded onto a computer).
As per claim 19, Schwartzbard et al., Rossman et al., and Pelissier et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Schwartzbard et al. further teaches wherein the medical image study includes a three-dimensional medical image data set, (see: paragraph [0147] where there is a 3D CT scan which is being obtained) the selected template video script encodes instructions for volumetric image rendering, (see: FIG. 8 where there is display of the volumetric image, thus there is a script that allows for volumetric image rendering) and
--the medical video report includes one or more images generated via volumetric image rendering (see: paragraph [0147] where there is a presentation being obtained from a 3D CT scan).
As per claim 20, claim 20 is similar to claim 7 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner.
As per claim 21, Schwartzbard et al., Rossman et al., and Pelissier et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Pelissier et al. further teaches wherein
--the at least one video template structure includes a plurality of optionally activable video template structures, (see: FIGS. 2 and 3 and paragraphs [0054] and [0090] where there are activable structures which animate the medical image) and
--the executing includes activating, based on the context information, at least one activable video template structure of the plurality of optionally activable video template structures and generating the medical video report based on the activated at least one activable video template structure (see: FIGS. 2 and 3 and paragraphs [0054] and [0090] where there are activable structures which animate the medical image. The execution of the effect (activable video template structure) generates the video report of the multimedia product).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0226746 to Schwartzbard et al. in view of U.S. 2009/0287487 to Rossman et al. further in view of U.S. 2018/0189992 to Pelissier et al. as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,964,417 to Gassman et al.
As per claim 2, Schwartzbard et al., Rossman et al., and Pelissier et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach:
1) --obtaining a medical text report relating to the medical image study; and
2) --wherein the determining includes extracting the context information from the medical text report.
Gassman et al. teaches:
1) --obtaining a medical text report relating to the medical image study; (see: column 3, lines 9-40 where there is obtaining of a text report) and
2) --wherein the determining includes extracting the context information from the medical text report (see: column 3, lines 9-40 and claim 1 where there is extraction of context information from the text report).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 1) obtain a medical text report relating to the medical image study and have 2) wherein the determining includes extracting the context information from the medical text report as taught by Gassman et al. in the method as taught by Schwartzbard et al., Rossman et al., and Pelissier et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of extracting the text from the image data (see: column 3, lines 41-51 of Gassman et al.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0226746 to Schwartzbard et al. in view of U.S. 2009/0287487 to Rossman et al. further in view of U.S. 2018/0189992 to Pelissier et al. as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. 2017/0091413 to Kondo et al.
As per claim 6, Schwartzbard et al., Rossman et al., and Pelissier et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 5, see discussion of claim 5. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the obtaining an indication of a medical finding comprises:
--querying whether the medical image study indicates one or more medical findings of the defined finding types of the video template structures of the selected template video script.
Kondo et al. teaches:
--wherein the obtaining an indication of a medical finding comprises:
--querying whether the medical image study indicates one or more medical findings of the defined finding types of the video template structures of the selected template video script (see: paragraph [0344] where there is querying an image to determine all findings. The findings being related to the video template structures was taught in the Schwartzbard et al. reference).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the obtaining an indication of a medical finding comprises: querying whether the medical image study indicates one or more medical findings of the defined finding types of the video template structures of the selected template video script as taught by Kondo et al. in the method as taught by Schwartzbard et al., Rossman et al., and Pelissier et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of improving existing medical imaging apparatuses (see: paragraph [0005] of Kondo et al.).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0226746 to Schwartzbard et al. in view of U.S. 2009/0287487 to Rossman et al. further in view of U.S. 2018/0189992 to Pelissier et al. as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. 2024/0160797 to Narayana et al.
As per claim 8, Schwartzbard et al., Rossman et al., and Pelissier et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach:
--obtaining natural language text from at least one of the context information or the medical image study;
--generating a voice-over based on the natural language text; and
--including the voice-over in the medical video report.
Narayana et al. teaches:
--obtaining natural language text from at least one of the context information or the medical image study; (see: paragraphs [0055] and [0063] where there is usage of NL generation to obtain text and the text is being obtained from imaging. The imaging being related to medical imaging was taught in Schwartzbard et al.)
--generating a voice-over based on the natural language text; (see: paragraph [0063] where there is generation of a narration based on the extracted text) and
--including the voice-over in the medical video report (see: paragraph [0063] where there is a voice-over in the form of a narration for the video. The report being related to a medical report was taught in Schwartzbard et al.).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to obtain natural language text from at least one of the context information or the medical image study, generate a voice-over based on the natural language text, and include the voice-over in the medical video report as taught by Narayana et al. in the method as taught by Schwartzbard et al., Rossman et al., and Pelissier et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of providing a GUI for a user to help them more quickly and accurately identify information (see: paragraph [0023] of Narayana et al.).
As per claim 9, Schwartzbard et al., Rossman et al., Pelissier et al., and Narayana et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 8, see discussion of claim 8. Narayana et al. further teaches:
--obtaining a medical text report relating to the medical image study; (see: paragraph [0055] where a text report is received and the NL generation is being applied to it. The report and study being related to a medical report and study was taught in Schwartzbard et al.)
--wherein the determining includes extracting the context information from the medical text report, (see: paragraphs [0055] and [0063] where there is extraction of text from the text report. The report being related to a medical report was taught in Schwartzbard et al.) and
--the obtaining natural language text includes extracting the natural language text from the medical text report (see: paragraphs [0055] and [0063] where there is usage of NL generation to obtain text and the text is being obtained from imaging. The report being related to a medical report was taught in Schwartzbard et al.).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 8, and incorporated herein.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0226746 to Schwartzbard et al. in view of U.S. 2009/0287487 to Rossman et al. further in view of U.S. 2018/0189992 to Pelissier et al. as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. 2021/0166391 to Hermosillo Valadez et al.
As per claim 12, Schwartzbard et al., Rossman et al., and Pelissier et al. in combination teaches the method of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Schwartzbard et al. further teaches wherein the medical image study includes a three-dimensional medical image data set, (see: paragraph [0147] where there is a 3D CT scan which is being obtained) and
--the medical video report includes one or more images generated via volumetric image rendering (see: paragraph [0147] where there is a presentation being obtained from a 3D CT scan).
Schwartzbard et al., Rossman et al., and Pelissier et al. in combination may not further, specifically teach:
--the selected template video script encodes instructions for implementing a path-tracing-based or ray-casting-based rendering process.
Hermosillo Valadez et al. teaches:
--the selected template video script encodes instructions for implementing a path-tracing-based or ray-casting-based rendering process (see: paragraph [0201] where there are instructions for volumetric rendering using ray-casting-based techniques).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have the selected template video script encodes instructions for implementing a path-tracing-based or ray-casting-based rendering process as taught by Hermosillo Valadez et al. in the method as taught by Schwartzbard et al., Rossman et al., and Pelissier et al. in combination with the motivation(s) of providing an improved method of distinguishing changes (see: paragraph [0008] of Hermosillo Valadez et al.).
No Art Rejection
Claims 10-11 and 16-18 have not been given an art rejection based on no singular reference nor any combination of prior art references being unreasonable to use to reject this claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights