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 the Claims
Claims 1 and 3-10 are currently pending. Claim 2 is canceled in the Claims filed on January 9, 2026.
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 and 3-10 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.
Step 1
Claims 1 and 3-10 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1 and -9 are drawn to a method for generating a multimedia radiology report, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claim 10 is drawn to a non-transitory medium for generating a multimedia radiology report, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1, which is representative of the inventive concept, recites: A computer-implemented method for automatic creation of a multimedia radiological report on a patient, the method comprising:
providing a written medical report on the patient;
creating a multimedia report script based on the provided written medical report using a large language model;
providing data related to at least one of the written medical report on the patient or the created multimedia report script;
creating a visual medical report on the patient based on the provided data and the created multimedia report script; and
combining the visual medical report and audio data to create the multimedia radiological report on the patient,
wherein the multimedia report script includes a layout of the multimedia radiological report and a list of keyframes to be utilized in creation of the visual medical report, and
the multimedia radiological report is a video created to provide visual detail of a respective patient-specific diagnosis or a region of interest.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case, receiving a written medical report, creating a multimedia report script based on the written medical report, providing data related to the written medical report or the multimedia report script, creating a visual medical report, and combining the visual medical report with audio data to create the multimedia report are steps that are reasonably interpreted as at least following rules or instructions to generate a medical report for a patient), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract ideas are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claim 10 is identical as the abstract idea for Claim 1, because the only difference between Claims 1 and 10 is that Claim 1 recites a method, whereas Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer program product.
Dependent Claims 3-9 include other limitations, for example Claims 3-5 recite the contents of the multimedia report script, Claim 6 recites combining keyframe audio data with the visual medical report to create the multimedia report, Claim 7 recites synchronizing the keyframe audio data with the visual medical report based on times in the multimedia report script, Claim 8 recites outputting the multimedia report, and Claim 9 further recites storing the written medical reports, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04, and/or do not further narrow the abstract idea and instead only recite additional elements, which will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 3-9 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as independent Claim 1.
Hence Claims 1 and 3-10 are directed towards the aforementioned abstract idea.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1 and 10 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the computer and the large language model) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of a computer to implement the method, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see [0073] and [0083] of the as-filed Specification, and see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the recitation of a large language model, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of machine learning, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Additionally, dependent Claims 3-9 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (e.g. the limitation of the patient portal for outputting the multimedia report recited in dependent Claim 8, the database recited in dependent Claim 9), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the limitation of using the large language model to convert the keyframe text into lay terms recited in dependent Claim 4), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent Claim 1, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence Claims 1 and 3-10 do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1 and 10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the computer and the large language model), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the additional elements comprise limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The present Specification expressly disclosing that the structural additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
[0073] and [0083] of the as-filed Specification disclose that the additional elements (i.e. the computer that implements the claimed functions) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems;
Relevant court decisions: The functional limitations interpreted as additional elements are analogized to the following examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the additional elements merely recite the creating and maintaining of medical report data, including the written report, the multimedia report script, the related data, the visual medical report, the audio data, and the ultimately generated multimedia radiological report.
Dependent Claims 3-9 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the patient portal recited in dependent Claim 8), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the additional large language model recited in dependent Claim 4), represent no more than generic structural elements performing generic functions (e.g. the medical information database and data processing unit recited in dependent Claim 9), electronic recordkeeping (e.g. the storing of written medical reports in the medical information database recited in dependent Claim 9), storing and retrieving information in memory (e.g. the retrieving of the written medical reports from the medical information database in order to ultimately generate the multimedia radiology report recited in dependent Claim 9), and/or the limitations recited by the dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent Claim 1, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Hence, Claims 1 and 3-10 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exceptions.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1 and 3-10 are nonetheless 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 (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.
Claims 1, 3, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brackett (US 2005/0114179) in view of Cordell (US 2024/0029850), further in view of Liou (US 2002/0051077).
Regarding Claim 1, Brackett teaches the following: A computer-implemented method for automatic creation of a multimedia radiological report on a patient, the method comprising:
providing a written medical report on the patient (The system obtains patient information during one or more on-site visits, wherein the patient information includes text reports, e.g. see Brackett [0032].);
creating a multimedia report script based on the provided written medical report (The system includes a multi-media patient summary template (i.e. a multimedia report script), e.g. see Brackett [0054]-[0057], wherein the multi-media patient summary template may be created based on the received text, e.g. see Brackett [0061]-[0062], Fig. 3.);
providing data related to at least one of the written medical report on the patient or the created multimedia report script (The system further receives additional various data such as audio, waveforms, and link data relating to the patient information, e.g. see Brackett [0055]-[0057] and [0061]-[0062], Fig. 3.);
creating a visual medical report on the patient based on the provided data and the created multimedia report script (The system link data (i.e. the provided data) may link to high-resolution images (i.e. a visual medical report), e.g. see Brackett [0034].); and
combining the visual medical report and audio data to create the multimedia radiological report on the patient (The system incorporates image data, text data, and audio data to generate the multi-media patient summary, e.g. see Brackett [0064]-[0067], Fig. 4.);
the multimedia radiological report is a video created to provide visual detail of a respective patient-specific diagnosis or a region of interest (The material assembled in the multi-media patient summary may include structured video regarding diagnoses, e.g. see Brackett [0032].),
wherein the multimedia report script includes a layout of the multimedia radiological report (The system includes a multi-media patient summary template (i.e. a multimedia report script), wherein the template specifies the contents and format of (i.e. a layout for) the multi-media report, e.g. see Brackett [0054]-[0057] and [0062].).
But Brackett does not teach and Cordell teaches the following:
wherein the multimedia report script is created using a large language model (The system receives patient data in a variety of formats and utilizes a trained large language model to automatically reformat the data into a format that enables the subsequent use of the data by machine learning models, e.g. see Cordell [0005], [0016], [0023], and [0050] – that is, the large language model determines a format (i.e. a script) for the data that enables the data to be subsequently processed.).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify Brackett to incorporate the large language model to generate the multimedia report script as taught by Cordell in order to enable subsequent processing operations on the received data by trained machine learning models, e.g. see Cordell [0016].
But the combination of Brackett and Codell does not teach and Liou teaches the following:
wherein the multimedia report script includes a list of keyframes to be utilized in creation of the visual medical report (The system includes various text and a list of key frames, wherein the text and key frames are used to generate a video summary, e.g. see Liou [0040]-[0041], and [0051], wherein the video summary may be in various forms including a streaming video, e.g. see Liou [0061]-[0062].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of summary generation to modify the combination of Brackett and Cordell to incorporate the key frame list in the generation of the multimedia report as taught by Liou in order to generate the summary when there is more action in the shot than can be captured in a single image, e.g. see Liou [0040].
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Brackett, Cordell, and Liou teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Liou further teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein keyframes of the list of keyframes created multimedia report script include, at least by way of a region to be investigated, at least one of at least one visualization parameter, text information, available external data or time information (The keyframes include story summary sentences (i.e. text information), e.g. see Liou [0046]-[0051], [0055], and [0059]. Additionally, the system tracks the time order (i.e. time information) of the key frames, e.g. see Liou [0032].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of summary generation to modify the combination of Brackett and Cordell to incorporate the key frame text and time data as taught by Liou in order to generate an auditory narration of the keyframes comprising a story summary, e.g. see Liou [0050].
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Brackett, Cordell, and Liou teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Brackett further teaches the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein the created multimedia radiological report on the patient is output via a patient portal (The system provides the multi-media patient summary to a user via a user display interface (i.e. a patient portal), e.g. see Brackett [0064], Fig. 4.).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Brackett, Cordell, and Liou teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and Brackett further teaches the following: A system for automatically creating a multimedia radiological report on a patient, the system comprising:
a medical information database including written medical reports on patients (The system includes text (i.e. written medical reports) that is used as a source to generate the multi-media patient summary, wherein the text may be stored in one or more repositories, e.g. see Brackett [0055], Fig. 2.); and
a data processor configured to cause the system to implement the method of claim 1 (The functions of the system are implemented by at least a compilation workstation, a server, and client workstations (i.e. any of which may be interpreted as a data processor), e.g. see Brackett [0053], Fig. 1.).
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations of Claim 10 are substantially similar to those claimed in Claim 1, with the sole difference being that Claim 1 recites a method whereas Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer program product. Specifically pertaining to Claim 10, Examiner notes that Brackett teaches that the invention may be embodied as a computer program provided on a machine readable media to be executed on client workstations, e.g. see Brackett [0021], and hence the grounds of rejection provided above for Claim 1 are similarly applied to Claim 10.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Brackett, Cordell, and Liou in view of Archuleta (US 2021/0357586)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Brackett, Cordell, and Liou teaches the limitations of Claim 3, but does not teach and Archuleta teaches the following:
The method of claim 3, wherein the keyframe text information of the created multimedia report script is automatically converted into lay terms using a further large language model (The includes a language model used to train a large language corpus of text (i.e. a further large language model) to generate word embeddings, wherein the word embeddings are necessary in order to apply machine learning algorithms to data to transform data, for example a health record, into lay person friendly language, e.g. see Archuleta [0037], [0045], and [0070].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of document generation to modify the combination of Brackett, Cordell, and Liou to incorporate the large language model to convert the data into lay person friendly language as taught by Archuleta in order to enable patients to understand data regarding their condition, medication, prognosis, or diagnoses, e.g. see Archuleta [0005].
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Brackett, Cordell, Liou, and Archuleta teaches the limitations of Claim 4, and Liou further teaches the following:
The method of claim 4, wherein the lay terms are synthesized in spoken language for providing keyframe audio data (The system generates (i.e. synthesizes) audio labels (i.e. spoken language) for video by isolating an audio track corresponding to a speaker, e.g. see Liou [0039], wherein the system further generates the summary including keyframes and corresponding audio, e.g. see Liou [0043] and [0051].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of summary generation to modify the combination of Brackett, Cordell, and Archuleta to incorporate the audio for the key frames as taught by Liou in order to generate a story summary including audio which enables a user to quickly browse a video clip and retrieve content in different levels of detail and locate segments of interest, e.g. see Liou [0006] and [0043].
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Brackett, Cordell, Liou, and Archuleta teaches the limitations of Claim 5, and Liou further teaches the following:
The method of claim 5, wherein the keyframe audio data is combined with the visual medical report to create the multimedia radiological report (The system combines corresponding audio labels with their keyframes to generate story-summary images with audio, e.g. see Liou [0043] and [0051].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of summary generation to modify the combination of Brackett, Cordell, and Archuleta to incorporate the audio for the key frames as taught by Liou in order to generate a story summary including audio which enables a user to quickly browse a video clip and retrieve content in different levels of detail and locate segments of interest, e.g. see Liou [0006] and [0043].
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Brackett, Cordell, Liou, and Archuleta teaches the limitations of Claim 6, and Liou further teaches the following:
The method of claim 6, wherein the keyframe audio data is synchronized with the visual medical report using the keyframe time information contained in the multimedia report script to create the multimedia radiological report on the patient (The system generates audio labels corresponding to the keyframes and combines the audio labels with the keyframes to generate story-summary images with audio, e.g. see Liou [0043] and [0051], wherein the system tracks the time order (i.e. time information) of the keyframes, e.g. see Liou [0032].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of summary generation to modify the combination of Brackett, Cordell, and Archuleta to incorporate the audio for the key frames as taught by Liou in order to generate a story summary including audio which enables a user to quickly browse a video clip and retrieve content in different levels of detail and locate segments of interest, e.g. see Liou [0006] and [0043].
Examiner further notes that Claim 7 recites conditional language. It has been held that conditional language does not narrow the claims because it may be omitted. According to the MPEP, “claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure” (MPEP §2111.04). In this case, Claim 7 recites “the keyframe time information contained in the multimedia report script.” However, Claim 3 (from which Claim 7 ultimately depends) recites that the multimedia report script includes “at least one of at least one visualization parameter, text information, available external data or time information.” Hence, if the multimedia report of Claim 3 does not contain time information, the steps recited in Claim 7 are not required. However, as shown above, in the interest of compact prosecution, the limitations of Claim 7 have been afforded patentable weight, and Claim 7 is nonetheless unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments, see Remarks filed January 9, 2026, with respect to the interpretation of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered, and in combination with the amendments, are persuasive. Claim 9 now recites a “data processor,” which is interpreted as a hardware computer processor, e.g. see [0073] of the as-filed Specification, and hence recites adequate structure to perform the functional limitations of the claim. Hence Claim 9 is no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed January 9, 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and, in combination with the claim amendments, are persuasive. The rejections of Claims 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed January 9, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1 and 3-10 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that the claimed invention is patent eligible because it integrates any abstract idea into a practical application because it provides a technological solution to a technological problem, specifically because it provides an improvement in medical care by adaptively creating a video detailing diagnostic information, e.g. see pg. 7 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Examiner asserts that even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed invention represents a technological solution, it does not address a technological problem. For example, [0005]-[0006] of the as-filed Specification state that “the generation of information material in addition to the written medical report, in order to impart particular information, represents a labor-intensive activity,” and “automatically generated (cinematic) reports can simplify the workflows in the medical environment.” That is, the Specification discloses that the present invention addresses the problems of “report creation requiring significant labor” and “reports being complex,” both of which represent problems that have existed since long before the advent of any type of computer technology, and instead represent business or commercial problems rather than technological problems. Hence, any improvement achieved by the claimed limitations represents improvements to the abstract idea of organizing human activities (i.e. following rules or instructions to construct patient reports) rather than a technological improvement and/or an improvement to the computer itself, and an improvement to the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
Applicant further alleges that the claimed invention is patent eligible because the claimed limitations recite transformations analogous to the invention in Abele, e.g. see pgs. 7-9 – Examiner disagrees.
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 are set forth in MPEP 2106, and “Examiners are expected to consider existing precedent like Enfish, as discussed in MPEP 2106,” e.g. see USPTO Memorandum “Advance notice of change to the MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins.” Regarding Abele, MPEP 2106 only cites the invention of Abele as an example of an abstract idea, specifically mathematical calculations, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C), and does not provide any further analysis.
Furthermore, regarding a particular transformation, MPEP 2106.05(c) states that a “particular transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing” may demonstrate a practical application of a judicial exception, wherein an “article” includes “a physical object or substance.” Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(c) also states that “for data, mere ‘manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’’ has not been deemed a transformation.” The claimed invention does not recite an “article” because it claims the manipulation of data rather than a physical object or substance. Hence, the claimed invention does not recite a particular transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing and cannot properly be interpreted as a basis for asserting patent eligibility in view of MPEP 2106 and 35 U.S.C. 101.
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed January 9, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1 and 3-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that Liou is deficient because “at no point in Liou is a list of keyframes utilized in creation of a visual medical report, which is combined with audio data create a multimedia radiological report, which is a video,” e.g. see pgs. 10-11 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
As stated above, Liou teaches a system including various text and a list of key frames, wherein the text and key frames are used to generate a video summary, e.g. see Liou [0040]-[0041], and [0051], wherein the video summary may be in various forms including a streaming video, e.g. see Liou [0061]-[0062]. That is, the collection of various text and list of key frames is interpreted as a “visual report,” and the ultimately constructed video summary which may be a streaming video is interpreted as a “multimedia report” that is a video. Hence Liou teaches utilizing the list of key frames to ultimately generate a multimedia report that is a video.
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 JOHN P GO whose telephone number is (703)756-1965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm Pacific.
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, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/JOHN P GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681