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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 3/25/26. Claims 1, 5, 13, 18, 24, and 25 have been amended. Claims 12, 17, and 19 are cancelled. Claims 1-11, 13-16, 18, and 20-25 are pending.
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 1-11, 13-16, 18, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 24 is directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 1-11, 13-16, 18, and 20-23 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), and claim 25 is directed to a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1-11, 13-16, 18, and 20-25 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A - Prong One:
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) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts.
Representative independent claim 24 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 24 recites:
24. A method comprising: providing, with at least one processor, a user interface, wherein the user interface is located at a support location different than a procedure location of a first procedure system of a plurality of procedure systems; receiving, with the at least one processor, from at least one of an injection system including an injector configured to deliver fluid to a patient and an imaging system including a scanner configured to scan the patient of the first procedure system, procedure data associated with a procedure for the patient, wherein at least one of the injection system and the imaging system includes at least one further user interface different than the user interface, wherein the injection system, the imaging system, and the at least one further user interface are located at the procedure location, and wherein the injection system is in communication with the imaging system; providing, with the at least one processor, via the user interface, a display, wherein the display is generated based on the procedure data, wherein the display further includes a plurality of segmented displays or sections corresponding to the plurality of procedure systems including the first procedure system, wherein a first segmented display or section includes a mirrored scanner user interface associated with the first procedure system and a mirrored injector user interface associated with the first procedure system, and wherein the display includes a prompt to confirm or approve an operation of at least one of the injection system and the imaging system; receiving, with the at least one processor, via the user interface, user input, wherein the user input includes a response to the prompt to confirm or approve the operation of the at least one of the injection system and the imaging system; controlling, with the at least one processor, based on the user input, the operation of the at least one of the injection system and the imaging system, wherein the at least one processor is programmed and/or configured to control the operation such that the at least one of the injection system and the imaging system is prevented from performing the operation until the response to the prompt is received via the user interface; and automatically providing, with the at least one processor, via the user interface, in response to at least one of the procedure data, the user input, generation or receipt of the prompt to confirm or approve the operation of at the least one of the injection system and the imaging system, or any combination thereof, the display with the first segmented display or section for the first procedure system in an enlarged or zoomed in manner as compared to the other segmented displays or sections of the plurality of procedure systems.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity” because to deliver fluid to a patient and to scan the patient; receiving procedure data associated with a procedure for the patient; providing, generated based on the procedure data, a plurality of segmented displays or sections; confirm or approve an operation; receiving user input, wherein the user input includes a response to confirm or approve the operation; controlling, based on the user input, the operation of the at least one of the injection system and the imaging system; control the operation such that the at least one of the injection system and the imaging system is prevented from performing the operation until the response to the prompt is received; providing, in response to at least one of the procedure data, the user input, generation or receipt of the prompt to confirm or approve the operation of at the least one of the injection system and the imaging system, or any combination thereof, the first segmented display or section amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), at the currently claimed high level of generality.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
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 integrate 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 exception into a “practical application.”
The limitations of claims 1, 24, and 25, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting at least one processor, procedure systems, a user interface, mirrored user interfaces, at least one further user interface, a display, and a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium to perform the limitations, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being certain methods of organizing human activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the at least one processor, procedure systems, user interface, mirrored user interfaces, at least one further user interface, display, and computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of providing data, receiving data, displaying data, controlling operation, and enlarging/zooming data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claims recite the additional limitations of receiving data from at least one of an injection system including an injector configured to deliver fluid to a patient and an imaging system including a scanner configured to scan the patient. Such steps would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art and are well-understood, routine and conventional activities specified at a high level of generality. It is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea and therefore adds insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the 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 effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, 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 § 2106.05). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 2-11, 13-16, 18, and 20-23 are ultimately dependent from Claim(s) 1 and include all the limitations of Claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim(s) 2-11, 13-16, 18, and 20-23 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2-11, 13-16, 18, and 20-23 describe further limitations regarding types of procedure data, types of images, types of information received, types of sensors and sensor data, generating an alert, retrieving information, types of user input, types of operations, at least one of modifying and aborting the operation, processing the one or more images to select a subset of the one or more images, wherein the display is generated based on the selected subset of the one or more images, types of scanners, locations, types of alerts, receiving authentication data, restricting one or more operations, and determining/selecting authorization level. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claim 1, without adding significantly more.
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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, independent claims 1, 24, and 25 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 reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations directed to the at least one processor receiving data from at least one of an injection system and an imaging system and the injection system is in communication with the imaging system, and a user interface receiving user input to control operation, all of which the Examiner submits merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea or are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality), the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
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 exception 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.
Therefore, claims 1-11, 13-16, 18, and 20-25 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 24, and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities: change “the other…” to “other….” Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 19, filed 3/25/26, with respect to claims 1, 24, and 25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-11, 13-16, 18, and 20-25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's additional arguments filed 3/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 3/25/26.
(1) Withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 is requested.
(A) As per the first argument, see 101 rejection above. The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations in the 101 rejection above constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity” because to deliver fluid to a patient and to scan the patient; receiving procedure data associated with a procedure for the patient; providing, generated based on the procedure data, a plurality of segmented displays or sections; confirm or approve an operation; receiving user input, wherein the user input includes a response to confirm or approve the operation; controlling, based on the user input, the operation of the at least one of the injection system and the imaging system; control the operation such that the at least one of the injection system and the imaging system is prevented from performing the operation until the response to the prompt is received; providing, in response to at least one of the procedure data, the user input, generation or receipt of the prompt to confirm or approve the operation of at the least one of the injection system and the imaging system, or any combination thereof, the first segmented display or section amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), at the currently claimed high level of generality. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the at least one processor, procedure systems, user interface, mirrored user interfaces, at least one further user interface, display, and computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of providing data, receiving data, displaying data, controlling operation, and enlarging/zooming data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claims recite the additional limitations of receiving data from at least one of an injection system including an injector configured to deliver fluid to a patient and an imaging system including a scanner configured to scan the patient. Such steps would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art and are well-understood, routine and conventional activities specified at a high level of generality. It is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea and therefore adds insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Regarding the additional limitations directed to the at least one processor receiving data from at least one of an injection system and an imaging system and the injection system is in communication with the imaging system, and a user interface receiving user input to control operation, all of which the Examiner submits merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea or are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality), the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). It is unclear from Applicant’s arguments what the “technological solution” is since the recited steps of the claim appear to be generic computer functions (i.e., providing data, receiving data, displaying data, controlling operation, and enlarging/zooming data).
Applicant is reminded that limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited but not applied prior art teaches augmented reality user guidance during examinations or interventional procedures (US 2021/0330388 A1).
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 LENA NAJARIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am-6 pm.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571)270-1813. 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.
/LENA NAJARIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights