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 the amendments filed 02/23/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1-8 have been amended and claims 9-10 have been added. Now, claims 1-10 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Newly added claim 10 is dependent on claim 1 and recites the limitation “wherein the image file format associated with the image…” Newly added claim 9 recites “acquiring…an image file format associated with the image,” but claim 1 does not recite similar language. Therefore, this recitation lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claims. For examination purposes, claim 10 will be treated as depending on claim 9, which would obviate this rejection.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong One
Claims 1 and 8 (claim 1 representative) recite setting an imaging apparatus group including a plurality of imaging apparatuses in response to a user's operation of selecting the plurality of imaging apparatuses; registering identification information identifying a subject in association with the imaging apparatus group; acquiring a plurality of images captured by respective ones of the plurality of imaging apparatuses included in the imaging apparatus group; and linking the acquired plurality of images with the identification information.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass managing personal behavior, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, the claims encompass a user selecting a group of imaging apparatuses, registering identification information associating a subject with the imaging apparatuses, acquiring images from the imaging apparatuses, and linking the images and identification information. While the claims includes several recitations of “imaging apparatuses,” these recitations are only descriptive of a group that is being identified and linked to a subject with identifying information. Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “acquiring a plurality of images captured by the respective ones of the plurality of imaging apparatuses,” encompasses manually acquiring copies of the images (e.g. X-Ray, MRI, CT, etc. copies), but does not require the imaging apparatuses to carry out an operation. Such manual steps encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 2-7 and 9-10 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea. For example, claims 2-3 and 6 further expand on the registration and providing new identification information to replace previous identification information. Claims 4-5 further expand on the identification information based on identification sign imaging (e.g. a barcode) and providing new identification information to replace previous identification information. Claim 7 further recites acquiring multiple images and performing linking as described above. As explained above, these manual steps encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 9 and 10 further recites acquiring an image file format associated with the image, wherein the image file format at least identifies the one imaging apparatus, and a time at which the image was captured by the one imaging apparatus, wherein the image file format does not identify the identification information identifying the subject, and wherein the time at which the image was captured is later than a time at which the identification information was registered; and determining that the imaging apparatus group identified by the image file format is included in the imaging apparatus group set; and in response to determining that the time at which the image was captured is later than the time at which the imaging apparatus group was set and determining that the imaging apparatus group identified by the image file format is included in the imaging apparatus group set, registering the image in association with the identification information of the subject, wherein the image file format associated with the image further identifies the one of the plurality of lighting conditions under which the image was captured, and wherein registering the image comprises registering the image in association with the identification information of the subject and the one of the plurality of lighting conditions identified by the image file format.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, further encompass and expand on managing personal behavior, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, the claims further encompass acquiring additional file format information for the image that identifies the apparatus, timing of image capture, lighting conditions when the image was captured, and using this information to register the image associated with the subject. Such manual steps encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas along with insignificant, extra-solution data gathering activity.
Claims 1-8, directly or indirectly, recite the following additional elements at a high level of generality and merely utilized as tools to implement the abstract idea:
Claim 1:
An image management method executed by a computer.
Claim 8:
An image management device comprising a processor.
The written description discloses that the recited computer components encompass generic components including “an example has been given in which the HDD or SSD of the storage section 43 is used as a computer-readable medium for the program according to the present disclosure, but the computer-readable medium is not limited to this example” (see paragraph 0077). As set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(d) “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claim 7 recites the following additional elements at a high level of generality, involving no more that extra-solution data gathering:
Claim 7:
the plurality of imaging apparatuses include a first imaging apparatus having a first imaging range and capturing a first image relating to a first site of the subject, and a second imaging apparatus having a second imaging range different from the first imaging range and capturing a second image relating to a second site different from the first site of the subject.
Claim 9:
Acquiring an image captured by one imaging apparatus.
Claim 10:
Wherein capturing of the image by the one image apparatus comprises capturing of the image under one of a plurality of lighting conditions.
These additional elements are recited at a high degree of generality and are merely involved in insignificant extra solution data gathering by capturing first and second images from first and second devices in first and second ranges for use in the subsequent linking with identification information. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(g) insignificant, extra-solution activity, such as insignificant acquisition and data transmission, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”).
Insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity (e.g. retrieving images, capturing images) has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Additionally, the aforementioned additional elements, considered in combination, do not provide an improvement to a technical field or provide a technical improvement to a technical problem. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takikawa, US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0075143 in view of Umeki, US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0269017.
As per claim 1, Takikawa teaches an image management method executed by a computer, the image management method comprising: setting an imaging apparatus group including a plurality of imaging apparatuses (see paragraphs 0043 and 0046; a group of imaging apparatus is set in associated with a patient both in transfer to a hospital and after arrival at the hospital); registering identification information identifying a subject in association with the imaging apparatus group (see paragraph 0211; patient Gr identifies a subject in association with the imaging apparatus group. For example, Figure 29 shows an example of Patient001 being associated with Device-A through Device D. Additionally, Emergency ID can be used for identifying the patient at the hospital and in association with a group of imaging apparatuses – paragraph 0042 and Figure 9 as examples); acquiring a plurality of images captured by respective ones of the plurality of imaging apparatuses included in the imaging apparatus group (see paragraph 0103; an example of patient emergency ID in associated with acquired images and respective imaging apparatuses in the group); and linking the acquired plurality of images with the identification information (see Figure 9 showing an example of the data being linked).
Although Takikawa teaches the above steps being carried out within a hospital, Takikawa does not explicitly describe the imaging apparatus group is set in response to a user's operation of selecting the plurality of imaging apparatuses.
Umeki teaches setting an imaging apparatus group in response to a user’s operation of selecting the plurality of imaging apparatuses (see paragraphs 0074 and 0077; a doctor can input instruction to display a group of images from a set of imaging devices). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the system of Takikawa to enable doctor interaction, such as in the disclosed hospital environment, with the motivation of maintaining proper associations between patient and images (see paragraph 0017 of Umeki).
As per claim 2, Takikawa and Umeki teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Takikawa further teaches acquiring the identification information from the imaging apparatus in which the identification information is input, registering the identification information in association with the imaging apparatus group (see paragraph 0211; patient Gr identifies a subject in association with the imaging apparatus group. For example, Figure 29 shows an example of Patient001 being associated with Device-A through Device D. Additionally, Emergency ID can be used for identifying the patient at the hospital and in association with a group of imaging apparatuses – paragraph 0042 and Figure 9 as examples). As noted above, Takikawa does not explicitly describe the user inputting the identification information. Umeki further teaches the identification information being input by a user in an imaging apparatus included in the imaging apparatus group (see paragraphs 0074 and 0077; a doctor can input instruction to display a group of images from a set of imaging devices). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the system of Takikawa to enable doctor interaction, such as in the disclosed hospital environment, with the motivation of maintaining proper associations between patient and images (see paragraph 0017 of Umeki).
As per claim 3, Takikawa and Umeki teaches the method of claim 2 as described above. Takikawa further teaches latest identification information acquired from an imaging apparatus included in the imaging apparatus group is different from the identification information already registered in association with the imaging apparatus group (see paragraph 0246; a later piece of medical information associated with the patient), wherein the image management method further comprises: registering the latest identification information to overwrite the identification information already registered, in association with the imaging apparatus group (see paragraph 0246; patient Gr is updated for the later captured medical information), acquiring a plurality of images captured by an imaging apparatus included in the imaging apparatus group after registration of the latest identification information (see paragraph 0247; updated patient Gr used for plurality of data captured by a plurality of apparatuses in the group), linking the acquired plurality of images by the latest identification information (see Figure 29A showing an example of such linking).
As per claim 4, Takikawa and Umeki teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Takikawa further teaches in response to an identification being acquired from an imaging apparatus included in the imaging apparatus group, and registering the identification information in association with the imaging apparatus group (see paragraph 0211; patient Gr identifies a subject in association with the imaging apparatus group. For example, Figure 29 shows an example of Patient001 being associated with Device-A through Device D. Additionally, Emergency ID can be used for identifying the patient at the hospital and in association with a group of imaging apparatuses – paragraph 0042 and Figure 9 as examples).
Takikawa does not explicitly teach that the identification is an identification sign image capable of identifying the identification information, identifying the identification information based on the identification sign. Umeki further teaches identification is an identification sign image capable of identifying the identification information, identifying the identification information based on the identification sign (see paragraph 0058; describes a bar code reader for inputting identification information). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include image-based identification, such as a bar code, of the imaging apparatuses in Takikawa with the motivation of simplifying associations between patients and images in a hospital environment (see paragraph 0017 of Umeki).
As per claim 5, Takikawa and Umeki teaches the method of claim 4 as described above. Takikawa further teaches latest identification information identified from the is different from the identification information already registered in association with the imaging apparatus group (see paragraph 0246; a later piece of medical information associated with the patient), wherein the image management method further comprises: registering the latest identification information to overwrite the identification information already registered, in association with the imaging apparatus group (see paragraph 0246; patient Gr is updated for the later captured medical information); acquiring a plurality of images captured by an imaging apparatus included in the imaging apparatus group after capturing of the identification (see paragraph 0247; updated patient Gr used for plurality of data captured by a plurality of apparatuses in the group); and linkingthe acquired plurality of images by the latest identification information (see Figure 29A showing an example of such linking).
As noted above, Takikawa does not explicitly teach the identification is an identification sign image Umeki further teaches identification is an identification sign image (see paragraph 0058; describes a bar code reader for inputting identification information). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include image-based identification, such as a bar code, of the imaging apparatuses in Takikawa with the motivation of simplifying associations between patients and images in a hospital environment (see paragraph 0017 of Umeki).
As per claim 6, Takikawa and Umeki teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Takikawa further teaches registering the identification information in association with the imaging apparatus group (see paragraph 0211; patient Gr identifies a subject in association with the imaging apparatus group. For example, Figure 29 shows an example of Patient001 being associated with Device-A through Device D. Additionally, Emergency ID can be used for identifying the patient at the hospital and in association with a group of imaging apparatuses – paragraph 0042 and Figure 9 as examples). As noted above, Takikawa does not explicitly describe the user inputting the identification information. Umeki further teaches the identification information being input by a user (see paragraphs 0074 and 0077; a doctor can input instruction to display a group of images from a set of imaging devices). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the system of Takikawa to enable doctor interaction, such as in the disclosed hospital environment, with the motivation of maintaining proper associations between patient and images (see paragraph 0017 of Umeki).
As per claim 7, Takikawa and Umeki teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Takikawa further teaches the plurality of imaging apparatuses include a first imaging apparatus having a first imaging range and capturing a first image relating to a first site of the subject, and a second imaging apparatus having a second imaging range different from the first imaging range and capturing a second image relating to a second site different from the first site of the subject (see paragraphs 0046 and 0210; different images are acquired by different imaging apparatuses with different imaging ranges, including CR, CT, MRI, smartphone cameras, drone cameras, etc.; acquisition location identifies different sites where different images were captured), and wherein the image management method further comprises: acquiring at least one of the first image and at least one of the second image respectively captured by the first imaging apparatus and the second imaging apparatus included in the imaging apparatus group (see paragraph 0103; an example of patient emergency ID in associated with acquired images and respective imaging apparatuses in the group); and linking, with the identification information, the at least one of the first image and the at least one of the second image that are acquired (see Figure 9 showing an example of the data being linked).
Claim 8 recites substantially similar device limitations to method claim 1 and, as such, is rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takikawa, US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0075143 in view of Umeki, US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0269017 and further in view of Morita, US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0232435.
As per claim 9, Takikawa and Umeki teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Takikawa further teaches acquiring an image captured by one imaging apparatus of the plurality of imaging apparatuses included in the imaging apparatus group and an image file format associated with the image (see paragraphs 0053-0054; describes acquiring images by devices being in a group as described above), wherein the image file format at least identifies the one imaging apparatus, and a time at which the image was captured by the one imaging apparatus (see paragraph 0210; acquisition time indicates the time at which the medical information was obtained), wherein the image file format does not identify the identification information identifying the subject (see Figure 24; broadest reasonable interpretation of image file format encompasses device ID, acquisition time, acquisition location, which is a string of data that does not identify the identification information identifying the subject), and; and determining that the imaging apparatus group identified by the image file format is included in the imaging apparatus group set (see Figure 27; example of determining a group set from the image file format); and in response to and determining that the imaging apparatus group identified by the image file format is included in the imaging apparatus group set, registering the image in association with the identification information of the subject (see Figures 24 and 27; shows a group being associated with each other and with a subject).
Takikawa and Umeki does not explicitly teach wherein the time at which the image was captured is later than a time at which the identification information was registered, determining that the time at which the image was captured is later than the time at which the imaging apparatus group was set. Morita teaches a time at which an image was captured is later than a time at which identification information was registered, determining that the time at which the image was captured is later than the time at which the imaging apparatus group was set (see paragraphs 0067 and 0086-0087; describes grouping a set of imaging devices and determining a time of an image capture later than the imaging group). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include timing data of registration and image capture within the image data recording of Takikawa and Umeki such that the registering the image is “in response to” the later time with the motivation of improving the efficiency of patient monitoring using multiple instruments (see paragraphs 0006-0007 of Morita).
Distinguishing Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of distinguishing subject matter: Claim 10, recited in combination with claims 1 and 9, distinguishes over the prior art. The closest prior art (Takikawa, Umeki, Morita) discloses registering an imaging apparatus group, with identification information identifying a subject, linking acquired images with the identification information, including time of image capture after the registration, and registering the image in association with the subject. Waaijer et al., Detection of breast cancer precursor lesions by autofluorescence ductoscopy, describes recording subject images and a type of light used when an image was captured. However, Waaijer does not describe registering the image in association with identification information of the subject, the lighting condition, and the timing of the registration and image capture to link acquired images, as recited in combination in the claims.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks filed 02/23/2026, Applicant argues (1) Umeki describes grouping image data output from imaging apparatuses, but does not teach user input to select a group of imaging apparatuses; (2) Umeki does not teach setting an imaging apparatus group and then acquiring images capture by respective imaging apparatuses; (3) Claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by providing a technical improvement to setting groups of image apparatuses and linking images to IDs.
In response to argument (1), paragraphs 0074 and 0077 of Umeki describes an input device and user interface for a doctor input instructions. One of the input instructions may be for “displaying the photographed images, which have been obtained from an image generating apparatus such as the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 2a, the endoscope apparatus 2b and the FPD imaging apparatus 2c. As shown in Figure 6, these can be considered set as a group by being displayed in connection with a common patient name. The setting of a group of imaging apparatuses, as recited in claim 1, does not distinguish over such setting in Umeki. With regard to claim 1, Umeki is only relied on to teach setting an imaging apparatus group in response to a user’s operation of selecting the plurality of imaging apparatuses, which is combined with the teachings Takikawa. Therefore, in view of the applied combination of references, this argument is not found to be persuasive.
In response to argument (2), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As explained above, the primary reference, Takikawa is relied upon for the linking step, and the majority of the limitations recited in claim 1. Therefore, this argument is found to be persuasive.
In response to argument (3), as explained in the above rejections, the action of grouping a set of imaging apparatuses to associate collected information with identifying information is an abstract idea data related to record keeping. Associating collected information with different types of identifiers may be useful to an individual that collects such information, but this does not represent a technical improvement. MPEP 2106305(a) outlines types of improvements to the functioning of a computer itself, to another technology or technical field. The argued improvements do not represent improvements to a computer, technology or technical field as the recited record keeping could be carried out manually in paper files. Therefore, the examiner respectfully maintains that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 C. Luke Gilligan whose telephone number is (571)272-6770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached at 571-272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
C. Luke Gilligan
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3683
/CHRISTOPHER L GILLIGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights