DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 6 July 2026.
Claim(s) 9-15 and 17 is/are canceled. Claim(s) 1-8, 16, 19, and 20 is/are amended. Claim(s) 21-26 is/are new.
Claim(s) 1-8, 16, and 19-26 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 1-8, 16, and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 19, which is representative of claims 1 and 20, recites an information processing method
acquiring,
extracting at least one region of interest included in the medical image to be interpreted by using
generate at least one of finding information or diagnostic information for the extracted at least one region of interest as a search query by using
from a comment-on-findings group including a plurality of comments on findings
determining at least one combination of diagnostic information and finding information included in the comment-on-findings candidates;
determining, as preprocessing before evaluating the comment-on-findings candidates, an importance value for each combination of diagnostic information and finding information included in the comment-on-findings group, the importance value being based on a frequency with which the combination is included in the comment-on-findings group, and based on a degree of uniqueness derived from (i) a number N of types of all diagnostic information included in the comment-on-findings group, and (ii) a number nt of types of diagnostic information that are included in the comment-on-findings group in combination with the finding information t included in the combination;
storing, in an importance table, the importance value for each combination of diagnostic information and finding information included in the comment-on-findings group and satisfying a predetermined condition;
evaluating each of the comment-on-findings candidates based on the importance value by referring to the importance table to obtain the importance value of the at least one combination of diagnostic information and finding information included in the comment-on-findings candidate and aggregating the obtained importance value, and, in a case in which the comment-on-findings candidate includes a combination for which no importance value is stored in the importance table, correct an evaluation of the comment-on-findings candidate to be lower; and
presenting,
wherein the diagnostic information indicates an estimated disease name or an evaluation result diagnosed based on a medical image, and the finding information indicates at least one of: a type, a property, a position, a measurement value, and a number of a region of interest; a phrase expressing a change in the region of interest; or a type of diagnostic information other than the diagnostic information to be paired.
The preceding recitation of the claim has had strikethroughs applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea. The remaining limitations describe a concept of reviewing an image, determining finding information, searching and evaluating potential findings related to the finding information, and presenting potential findings. This concept describes a process that an assistant should follow to assist a provider generate a findings report similar to the “process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) as an example of managing personal behavior in the methods of organizing human activity sub-grouping. As such, these limitation are determined to set forth an example of managing personal behavior which is a method of organizing human activity. Therefore the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims recite the additional element of an information processing system comprising an image database configured to store the generated medical image; a report database configured to store interpretation reports including comments on findings; an interpretation workstation used by a radiologist to interpret the medical image and create an interpretation report; and an information processing apparatus included in the interpretation workstation and comprising at least one processor, a display, and an input device. This additional element is recited at an extremely high level of generality and may be interpreted as a generic computing device used to implement the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional elements of a first and second machine learning model which are trained. This additional element amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a generic computing device. As previously noted, such additional elements do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite an additional element of acquiring data from a database and data stored in the database. This additional element does not constitute a technological improvement. This additional element does not constitute a particular machine or manufacture. This additional element does not apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. Instead, this additional element only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of a computer. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element presenting information via a display. This additional element is not significant and does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim. Instead, this additional element amounts to necessary data outputting. As such, this additional element could be interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity. However, “display device” is also understood as part of a generic computer. The incorporation of this limitation amounts to instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computing device. This interpretation is supported by 1) the claim only really describe an outcome of processing without details as to how anything is accomplished, and the highly generic application of the abstract idea (display data) with the computing device. As such, this additional element is considered mere instructions to implement the abstract idea with a computing device. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite an additional element of an imaging apparatus configured to generate a medical image of an examination target site of a subject. This additional element does not constitute a technological improvement. This additional element does not constitute a particular machine or manufacture. This additional element does not apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. Instead, this additional element only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of medical imaging. Alternatively, as this limitation does not impose a meaningful limitation on the claim, and as this limitation amounts to necessary data gathering, this additional element may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of a computing device. Therefore the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite additional elements which may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea and elements which merely amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a computing device. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of acquiring data from a database and data stored in the database. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), storing and retrieving information in a memory has been recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of presenting information via a display. Calvert et al. (US 2002/0102989 A1) demonstrates (“The display 211 presents the selected information to the user by way of a conventional liquid crystal display (LCD) or other visual display” [0033]) the conventional of such information presentation. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite an imaging apparatus configured to generate a medical image of an examination target site of a subject. Siegel et al. (US 2007/0073143 A1) demonstrates (“data images of scan of the fiduciary markers 12 embedded in the device 10 using a conventional MRI device, a conventional X-ray CT device, and a conventional PET scanner” [0026]) that such apparatuses were conventional long before the prior date of the claimed invention. This supports the determination that this additional element is mere insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of a computing device. Therefore the additional elements of the claims, as a combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considered individually and as a combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 16, 21-24, and 26 only further describe the abstract idea, continuing to recite an abstract idea, and do not recite any further additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the narrowed abstract ideas into a practical application for the same reasons as identified above. As such, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea. At step 2B, the previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as identified above. Thus as these claims are directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, claims 2-8, 16, 21-24, and 26 are not patent eligible. Dependent claim 25 further describes the additional element of the first learning model by saying it is a convolutional neural network. This additional element continues to amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a generic computing device. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. When considered in combination with the previously identified additional elements, the combination of those additional elements with the convolutional neural network only generally links the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of a computing device. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore claim 25 is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, Cosatto et al. (US 2010/0002920 A1) demonstrates (“CNNs are well known in the art and generally comprise a conventional neural network” [0032]) that convolutional neural networks were conventional long before the prior date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered again in combination with the previously identified additional elements, the combination of those additional elements with the convolutional neural network still only generally links the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of a computing device. Thus as this claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, claims 25 is not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 1-9, 11-17, 19 and 20:
The claims solve a technical problem specific to radiological interpretation report creation support: how to connect machine-derived information obtained from a medical image to be interpreted with medically relevant candidate comment text stored in past interpretation reports.
In conventional report creation support, a user may need to … manually review a large number of past report comments. … The amended claims solve this problem by reciting a specific processing pipeline.
The amended claims solve this problem by reciting a specific processing pipeline.
The Office Action characterizes the claims are directed to a mental process or a method of organizing human activity. … Accordingly, the amended claims do not recite a mere mental process.
The use of trained learning models for ROI extraction and ROI-based query generation, together with the importance table based on frequency and N/nt-derived uniqueness, provides a particular machine-executed mechanism that goes beyond generic computer implementation of an abstract idea.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 6 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to suggestion the technical problem is “connecting” one set of information, information obtained from a medical image, with another set of information, text stored in past interpretation reports. This does not on its face appear to be a “problem” technical or otherwise. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the information sets already “connected” through use of similar words. Thus it is unclear what the problem is addressed.
Applicant’s argument appears to characterize the claimed invention as solving a problem associated with manual operation in conventional report creation support. Per MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), the courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality.
Examiner notes that there does not appear to be any guidance indicating that specific data processing pipelines are per se eligible. Note Example 47, claim 2 which arguably recites a similarly “specific” processing pipeline is indicated by the guidance as reciting ineligible subject matter.
Examiner notes that neither the current nor prior office action indicates that the claims fall in the mental processes sub-grouping. Applicant’s arguments do not appear to address the rejection’s placement of the claims in the managing personal behavior sub-grouping of the methods of organizing human activity grouping.
The referenced features contain elements which are considered part of the abstract idea, and thus are not additional elements beyond the abstract idea. Further, the use of “trained learning models” to implement parts of the abstract idea does not itself render the claims eligible as such elements amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a generic computing device.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 of the prior office action dated 10 September 2025.
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 Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm EST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/Bion A Shelden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2026-09-18
Prosecution Insights