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 .
Status of Claims
In the amendment filed 1/7/2026 the following occurred: Claim 1 was amended; and Claims 14-20 were added as new. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 1-20 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 1-20 are drawn to a system, a method, and a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 1 recites extract a follow-up recommendation for a patient from a narrative in a radiological report; process the extracted follow-up recommendation to generate an electronic unauthorized imaging order for the patient based on the follow-up recommendation for the patient, wherein the unauthorized imaging order comprises a first anatomy to image, a first modality to use to image the first anatomy and a time interval, and wherein the unauthorized imaging order has a status of open; retrieve an electronic authorized imaging order for the patient, which is an imaging order that is prescribed and entered by a healthcare practitioner with authorization to prescribe the imaging order for the patient, wherein the authorized imaging order includes a second anatomy to image and a second imaging modality to use to image the second anatomy; identify that the authorized imaging order overlaps the unauthorized imaging order based on overlap of the first and second anatomies and the first and second imaging modalities and are combinable into a single ordered imaging examination; select an imaging protocol that satisfies the combination of the authorized and unauthorized imaging orders; and in response to the single ordered imaging examination being performed according to the selected imaging protocol, acknowledge that the follow-up recommendation has been satisfied.
Independent claim 14 recites extracting a follow-up recommendation for a patient from a narrative in a radiological report; processing the extracted follow-up recommendation to generate an electronic unauthorized imaging order for the patient based on the follow-up recommendation for the patient, wherein the unauthorized imaging order comprises a first anatomy to image, a first modality to use to image the first anatomy and a time interval, and wherein the unauthorized imaging order has a status of open; receiving an electronic authorized imaging order for the patient, wherein the imaging order is prescribed and entered by a healthcare practitioner with authorization to prescribe the imaging order for the patient, and wherein the authorized imaging order includes a second anatomy to image and a second imaging modality to use to image the second anatomy; identifying that the authorized imaging order overlaps the unauthorized imaging order based on overlap of the first and second anatomies and the first and second imaging modalities and are combinable into a single ordered imaging examination; selecting an imaging protocol that satisfies the combination of the authorized and unauthorized imaging orders; and acknowledging, in response to the single ordered imaging examination being performed according to the selected imaging protocol, that the follow-up recommendation has been satisfied.
Independent claim 19 recites extracting a follow-up recommendation for a patient from a narrative in a radiological report; processing the extracted follow-up recommendation to generate an electronic unauthorized imaging order for the patient based on the follow-up recommendation for the patient, wherein the unauthorized imaging order comprises a first anatomy to image, a first modality to use to image the first anatomy and a time interval, and wherein the unauthorized imaging order has a status of open; receiving an electronic authorized imaging order for the patient, wherein the imaging order is prescribed and entered by a healthcare practitioner with authorization to prescribe the imaging order for the patient, and wherein the authorized imaging order includes a second anatomy to image and a second imaging modality to use to image the second anatomy; identifying that the authorized imaging order overlaps the unauthorized imaging order based on overlap of the first and second anatomies and the first and second imaging modalities and are combinable into a single ordered imaging examination; selecting an imaging protocol that satisfies the combination of the authorized and unauthorized imaging orders; and acknowledging, in response to the single ordered imaging examination being performed according to the selected imaging protocol, that the follow-up recommendation has been satisfied.
The respective dependent claims 2-13, 15-18, and 20, but for the inclusion of the additional elements specifically addressed below, provide recitations further limiting the invention of the independent claim(s).
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, as reflected in the specification, which states that the invention is “for compliance of radiological follow-up recommendations in a closed loop” (see: specification page 3, lines 19-20). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address problems with the “untimely diagnosis of incidental findings and/or additional ad hoc workflows executed by human agents "patching" the IT gap” (see: specification page 2, lines 25-26). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “a processor configured to” perform the claimed functions (claim 1), “a database comprising an electronic memory configured to…database…the processor is further configured to…database…” (claim 2), “the processor is further configured to…” (claims 3-4 and 8-11), “the processor is further configured to…database…” (claim 6), “the processor” (claim 7), and “non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by at least one electronic processor to perform a method for medical recommendation, comprising:..” (claim 19), which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., the “processor” is implemented in invention through no more than a statement than that it is “configured to” perform the claimed functions; the “database comprising an electronic memory” stores data through no more than a statement than that it is “configured to” do so; the “non-transitory computer readable medium” is configured though no more than a statement than that “instructions” stored on said medium cause said processor “to perform” a method) such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
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(s) into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea(s) with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-13, 15-18, and 20, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea(s) without significantly more. These claims fail to recite additional elements or other limitations that individually or as an ordered combination transform the identified abstract idea(s) in the rejection into a patent-eligible application of that idea, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0200921 to Hamill in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0109473 to Kulon.
As per claim 1, Hamill teaches a system, comprising:
a processor configured to: process the follow-up recommendation to generate an electronic unauthorized imaging order for the patient based on the follow-up recommendation for the patient, wherein the unauthorized imaging order comprises a first anatomy to image, a first modality to use to image the first anatomy and a time interval, and wherein the unauthorized imaging order has a status of open (see: Hamill, Fig. 4, ele. X-ray abdomen; and paragraph 34 and 36, is met by medical practitioner enters additional/new orders, where the medical orders can include imaging orders, where the orders are labeled as active for instance in Fig. 5);
retrieve an electronic authorized imaging order for the patient, which is an imaging order that is prescribed and entered by a healthcare practitioner with authorization to prescribe the imaging order for the patient, wherein the authorized imaging order includes a second anatomy to image and a second imaging modality to use to image the second anatomy (see: Hamill, Fig. 4, ele. Ultrasound abdomen, MRI abdomen; paragraph 40, is met by existing medical orders, where the medical orders can include imaging orders; Fig. 4, ele. X-ray abdomen; and paragraph 34 and 36, is met by medical practitioner enters additional/new orders, where the medical orders can include imaging orders);
identify that the authorized imaging order overlaps the unauthorized imaging order based on overlap of the first and second anatomies and the first and second imaging modalities and are combinable into a single ordered imaging examination; select an imaging protocol that satisfies the combination of the authorized and unauthorized imaging orders (see: Hamill, Fig. 4, ele. Imaging, order x-ray abdomen, and similar orders being ultrasound abdomen and MRI abdomen; paragraph 42 and 47-48, is met by the processor retrieves the same type or similar orders from the medical orders database and compares the similar medical orders corresponding to the new medical order in database to the existing orders of the same medical order type or types, the similar medical orders are orders that may be medically similar to the new medical order, rendering the new order unnecessary or repetitive), and select an imaging protocol that satisfies the combination of the authorized and unauthorized imaging orders (see: Hamill, Fig. 5, ele. Active, Signed & Held orders; and paragraph 40 and 47-49, is met by the medical practitioner can modify the order and activate the save work button, or discontinue the order by activating the remove button, removing the order from screen); and
in response to the single ordered imaging examination being performed according to the selected imaging protocol, acknowledge that the follow-up recommendation has been satisfied (see: Hamill, Fig. 5, ele. Active, Signed & Held orders; paragraph 49, is met by, when the new order is saved, and the order is signed, the order is stored in the patient database).
Hamill fails to specifically teach the following limitations met by Kulon as cited:
extract a follow-up recommendation for a patient from a narrative in a radiological report such that the follow-up recommendation is extracted (see: Kulon, abstract and paragraph 17, 22, 27-30, and 38-40, is met by radiology reports processed using text-processing techniques from tokenization and sentence or clause term proximity considerations to extract information for a follow-up recommendation, and contacting a providing the recommendations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the imaging order entry as taught by Hamill to be a recommendation provided by processing a radiology report using text-processing techniques from tokenization and sentence or clause term proximity considerations to extract information indicating a follow-up as taught by Kulon with the motivation of facilitating the management of the detected patients by maximizing the relevancy of results for identified patients who did not obtain such recommended diagnostic tests or therapeutic interventions and otherwise could have suffered adverse consequences (see: Kulon, abstract, and paragraph 17).
As per claim 2, Hamill and Kulon teach the invention as cited, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
a database comprising an electronic memory configured to store the generated unauthorized imaging order, wherein the database includes a plurality of unauthorized imaging orders (see: Hamill, Fig. 5, ele. Active, Signed & Held orders; Fig. 7; and paragraph 45 and 49, is met by the save work button, when the new order is saved, the order is stored in the patient database, which stores a plurality of existing medical orders); and
wherein the processor is further configured to store the generated unauthorized imaging order in the database (see: Hamill, Fig. 5, ele. Active, Signed & Held orders; paragraph 49, is met by the save work button, when the new order is saved separately from signing, the order is stored in the patient database).
As per claim 3, Hamill and Kulon teach the invention as cited, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the processor is further configured to compare at least the first anatomy and the first modality of the unauthorized imaging order with the second anatomy and the second modality of the authorized imaging order to determine the overlap between the unauthorized imaging order and the authorized imaging order (see: Hamill, Fig. 4, ele. X-ray abdomen, Ultrasound abdomen, MRI abdomen; and paragraph 30, 42, and 47-48, is met by the processor retrieves the same type or similar orders from the medical orders database and compares the similar medical orders corresponding to the new medical order in database to the existing orders of the same medical order type or types, the similar medical orders are orders that may be medically similar to the new medical order, rendering the new order unnecessary or repetitive, where imaging procedures which acquire duplicate images of the same sector of the patient can also be duplicative).
As per claim 4, Hamill and Kulon teach the invention as cited, see discussion of claim 3, and further teach:
wherein the processor is further configured to use a hierarchy of anatomy and a set of rules to determine the overlap of the first anatomy from the unauthorized imaging order and the second anatomy of the unauthorized order by a common anatomy according to a next level of the hierarchy of anatomy of the first anatomy and the second anatomy, wherein the next level of the hierarchy of anatomy is according to an ontology (see: Hamill, Fig. 4, ele. X-ray abdomen, Ultrasound abdomen, MRI abdomen; and paragraph 30, 42, and 47-48, is met by parse the entered text string and compare either the entire text string or portions of the text string to known orders, where rules can be provided specifying the degree of similarity between the text string or text string portion and a known order to trigger identification as a possible match, and where an existing order of the same or closest medical order type, or if no identical match is found, similar medical orders are matched).
As per claim 5, Hamill and Kulon teach the invention as cited, see discussion of claim 3, and further teach:
wherein the selected imaging protocol includes imaging parameters of the medical imaging device that images both the first anatomy of the unauthorized imaging order and the second anatomy of the authorized imaging order (see: Hamill, Fig. 4, ele. X-ray abdomen, Ultrasound abdomen, MRI abdomen; and paragraph 30, 34, 37, and 49, is met by medical orders that can be imaging orders, and imaging procedures, where medical orders database can include a listing of known medical orders including a standardized listing of medical order types, specific medical orders that correlate to the medical order type, and also, a list of medically similar orders that are pre-determined to be sufficiently medically similar to the corresponding order, wherein when the new order is saved, and the order is signed, the order is stored in the patient database with the corresponding medical order type).
As per claim 7, Hamill and Kulon teach the invention as cited, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the processor identifies and extracts the follow-up recommendation using lexicological mapping of terms to standard data values and the follow-up recommendation is for an imaging examination (see: Kulon, abstract and paragraph 17, 22, 27, 30, and 38-40, is met by radiology reports processed to extract information for a follow-up recommendation, and contacting a providing the recommendations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the imaging order entry as taught by Hamill to be a recommendation provided by processing a radiology report to extract information indicating a follow-up as taught by Kulon with the motivation of facilitating the management of the detected patients by maximizing the relevancy of results for identified patients who did not obtain such recommended diagnostic tests or therapeutic interventions and otherwise could have suffered adverse consequences (see: Kulon, abstract, and paragraph 17).
As per claim 8, Hamill and Kulon teach the invention as cited, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the processor is further configured to: combine the unauthorized imaging order with the authorized imaging order in response to an input authorizing the combination by an ordering healthcare practitioner; and deleting the unauthorized imaging order (see: Hamill, Fig. 5, ele. Active, Signed & Held orders; and paragraph 40 and 47-49, is met by the medical practitioner can modify the order and activate the save work button, or discontinue the order by activating the remove button, removing the order from screen).
As per claim 9, Hamill and Kulon teach the invention as cited, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the processor is further configured to: link the unauthorized imaging order to the authorized imaging order, and, in response to the link, modify the status of the unauthorized imaging order from open to ordered (see: Hamill, Fig. 5, ele. Active, Signed & Held orders; paragraph 46-49, is met by highlighting similar/matching/duplicate orders, or the medical order database storing a probability or confidence factor, indicating a degree of similarity between the corresponding similar types of medical orders, and when the new order is saved, and the order is signed, the order is stored in the patient database).
As per claim 11, Hamill and Kulon teach the invention as cited, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the processor is further configured to: identify the unauthorized imaging order as an ordered imaging order (see: Hamill, Fig. 5, ele. Active, Signed & Held orders; paragraph 49, is met by, when the new order is saved, and the order is signed, the order is stored in the patient database) in response to determining the authorized imaging order and the unauthorized imaging order are combinable into the single ordered scheduled imaging examination (see: Hamill, Fig. 5, ele. Active, Signed & Held orders; and paragraph 40 and 47-49, is met by the medical practitioner can modify the order and activate the save work button, or discontinue the order by activating the remove button, removing the order from screen).
As per claim 12, Hamill and Kulon teach the invention as cited, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the selected imaging protocol varies between the first anatomy and the second anatomy by one or more of an acquisition parameter, a reconstruction parameter, a presence or an absence of a contrast agent, use of a motion or vital sign monitoring device, and a distribution parameter (see: Hamill, Fig. 3, ele. “abdomen” and “chest” and various “prescriptions”; Fig. 5, ele. Active, Signed & Held orders, and “X-Ray Abdomen Abdomen AP”; Fig. 7, ele. “X-Ray Abdomen AP Routine”; and paragraph 34, 40 and 47-49, is met by the medical practitioner can modify the order and activate the save work button, or discontinue the order by activating the remove button, removing the order from screen – imaging orders include the anatomy such as “abdomen” and “chest”; medication orders can also include prescriptions and contrast agents are prescriptions; and “Abdomen AP Routine” indicates anteroposterior, or both front and back, and routine indicates there is no rush).
Hamill teaches the claimed limitations as cited, but it is noted that the contents of the selected imaging protocol (i.e., that said imaging protocol varies between the first anatomy and the second anatomy by one or more of an acquisition parameter, a reconstruction parameter, a presence or an absence of a contrast agent, use of a motion or vital sign monitoring device, and a distribution parameter) are descriptors of data that do not alter or describe the functionality of invention itself; hence, they are nonfunctional descriptive material and as such are not patentably significant (see: In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability)).
As per claim 13, Hamill and Kulon teach the invention as cited, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the selected imaging protocol includes a low dose scan of the first anatomy and a motion monitored scan of the second anatomy, wherein the first and second anatomy are different but overlap and the first and second imaging modalities are a same imaging modality (see: Hamill, Fig. 3, ele. “abdomen” and “chest” and various “prescriptions”; Fig. 5, ele. Active, Signed & Held orders, and “X-Ray Abdomen Abdomen AP”; Fig. 7, ele. “X-Ray Abdomen AP Routine”; and paragraph 34, 40 and 47-49, is met by the medical practitioner can modify the order and activate the save work button, or discontinue the order by activating the remove button, removing the order from screen – imaging orders include the anatomy such as “abdomen” and “chest”; medication orders can also include prescriptions and contrast agents are prescriptions; and “Abdomen AP Routine” indicates anteroposterior, or both front and back, and routine indicates there is no rush).
Hamill teaches the claimed limitations as cited, but it is noted that the contents of the selected imaging protocol (i.e., that said imaging protocol includes a low dose scan of the first anatomy and a motion monitored scan of the second anatomy, wherein the first and second anatomy are different but overlap and the first and second imaging modalities are a same imaging modality) are descriptors of data that do not alter or describe the functionality of invention itself; hence, they are nonfunctional descriptive material and as such are not patentably significant (see: In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability)).
Claims 14-15 and 17-19 repeat the subject matter of claims 1, 4, and 8-9, which have been shown to be fully disclosed by the cited prior art in the rejections above; as such, claims 14-15 and 17-19 are rejected here for the same reasons given in the above rejections of claims 1, 4, and 8-9, which are incorporated herein.
Claim 6, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0200921 to Hamill in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0109473 to Kulon further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0010195 to Cohn.
As per claim 6, Hamill and Kulon teach the invention as cited, see discussion of claim 2, but fail to specifically teach the following limitations met by Cohn as cited:
wherein the processor is further configured to: search the database for unauthorized orders that are open and within a predetermined threshold of the time interval (see: Cohn, Fig. 10; and paragraph 83, 91, 104, 107-108, 112, is met by filtering radiology medical records that have been created, updated, or modified within a time period), and
send an event notice for each open unauthorized order within the predetermined threshold of a corresponding time interval (see: Cohn, Fig. 15; and paragraph 83, 91, 104, 107-108, 112, is met by system indication and updating of status of reference information related to medical records including whether the medical record has been completely updated or whether the medical record is currently in use).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the medical orders records as taught by Hamill and Kulon to include filtering radiology medical records within a time period and system indication and updating of status of reference information related to medical records as taught by Cohn with the motivation of facilitating the review of disciplines without requiring the user to retrieve and analyze independent medical records (see: Cohn, paragraph 15).
Claims 16 and 20 repeat the subject matter of claim 6, which has been shown to be fully disclosed by the cited prior art in the rejections above; as such, claims 16 and 20 are rejected here for the same reasons given in the above rejections of claim 6, which are incorporated herein.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0200921 to Hamill in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0109473 to Kulon further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0271316 to Hollebeek.
As per claim 10, Hamill and Kulon teach the invention as cited, see discussion of claim 1, and further teach:
wherein the processor is further configured to: convert the unauthorized imaging order into a second authorized imaging order (see: Hamill, Fig. 5, ele. Active, Signed & Held orders; and paragraph 40 and 47-49, is met by the medical practitioner can modify the order and activate the save work button, or discontinue the order by activating the remove button, removing the order from screen); and
Hamill fails to specifically teach the following limitations met by Hollebeek as cited:
link the second authorized imaging order to the authorized imaging order by adding electronic pointers to the second authorized imaging order and the authorized imaging order to crosslink the second authorized imaging order and the authorized imaging order (see: Hollebeek, paragraph 34, 53, 60, and 63, is met by creating links to medical records that associate corresponding medical records with pointers that are stored with the respective medical records).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the medical orders as taught by Hamill and Kulon to include links to medical records that associate corresponding medical records with pointers that are stored with the respective medical records with the motivation of improving response time for finding a respective medical record in the system (see: Hollebeek, paragraph 34).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments from the response filed on 12/22/2025 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that (1) the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections should be withdrawn because “this interpretation is incorrect, as the claims comprise subject matter that cannot be personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, the claims comprise processing an extracted follow-up recommendation to generate an electronic unauthorized imaging order for the patient based on the follow-up recommendation for the patient. A human cannot perform this step, with or without a computer, as a human generating an imaging order is, by definition, an authorized imaging order. A human being does not, with or without a computer, generate an unauthorized imaging order. Notably, processing an extracted follow-up recommendation to generate an electronic unauthorized imaging order is not pre- or post-solution activity, rather this is the very foundation of the claimed system/method.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The rejection states that the claims fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Data intensiveness does not preclude a process from being abstract and is inconsequential to the analysis of the rejection provided. The invention combines overlapping imaging orders into a single order, for example, to address problems with the “untimely diagnosis of incidental findings and/or additional ad hoc workflows executed by human agents "patching" the IT gap” (see: specification page 2, lines 25-26); hence, the problem is one of organizing the human activity concerning “compliance of radiological follow-up recommendations” (see: specification page 3, lines 19-20). It is acknowledged in the rejection that the claims expressly require the invention to be performed by “a processor configured to” (claim 1), for example, but this does not preclude a claim from being classified as certain methods of organizing human activity, or even mental processes. (Additionally, newly added claim 14 does not require a processor at all.) Furter, the Office has classified as certain methods of organizing human activity the abstract idea in the Electric Power Group decision, for example, which involved detecting events on an interconnected electric power grid in real time over a wide area, and automatically analyzing the events on the interconnected electric power grid was found abstract for collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Similarly to what is presently being argued, to perform such a procedure mentally would be impractical but the claims in EPG were found abstract nonetheless. The claims remain abstract for the reasons given above - because they represent a certain method of organizing human activity and because they lack additional elements that amount to significantly more.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that (2) the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections should be withdrawn because “[t]he claims recite processing a follow-up recommendation to generate an electronic unauthorized imaging order for the patient based on a follow-up recommendation for the patient, however the Patent Office asserts that this is "met by medical practitioner enters additional/new orders, where the medical orders can include imaging orders, where the orders are labeled as active." An imaging order entered by a medical practitioner is, by definition, an authorized imaging order. The Patent Office itself acknowledges this, as the Patent Office cites the same figures and paragraphs as teaching the step of retrieving an electronic authorized imaging order for the patient. An additional/new order entered by a medical practitioner cannot be an unauthorized order, and additionally it cannot be both an unauthorized order and an authorized order.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner has searched the specification and has not found a proper definition for the terminology “authorized” or its variants. Regardless, within the context and scope of the claims, that an imagining order is either authorized or unauthorized represents nonfunctional descriptive material and as such is not patentably significant (see: In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability)). Determining the overlap of two or more imaging orders can be performed without variation regardless of the imagining orders being labeled authorized or unauthorized. Hamill still teaches the nonfunctional descriptive material of authorized and unauthorized medical imaging orders by way of signing the order (see: Hamill, paragraph 49).
The argument therefore rests on what it means for a processor to “generate” an imaging order. The claims are broad and encompass what is generated (an imaging order), not how it is generated, based on what input (other than a recommendation), or what has triggered the generation. The claims are broad as to the issue of what it means to generate an imaging order. Hamill meets the broad claim limitation in question when teaching a window on a display of a system that renders an imagining order. The creation is based upon practitioner entry of additional/new order details that would constitute the imaging order for a follow-up recommendation in question, which is more disclosure as to how to generate an imaging order than what is claimed and therefore is sufficient to meet the broad limitation in question.
Conclusion
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 ROBERT A SOREY whose telephone number is (571)270-3606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8am to 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, Fonya Long can be reached on (571) 270-5096. 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.
/ROBERT A SOREY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682