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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 5/4/2026 in which claims 1 and 12 have been amended and claims 9-11 have been canceled. Thus, the claims 1-8 and 12-19 are pending in the application. Applicant also filed a response dated 5/20/2026 in which new claims 20-23 have been added. Thus, the claims 1-8 and 12-23 are pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/4/2026 and 5/20/2026 have been entered.
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 and 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of providing medical imaging decision support data without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 12 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1 and 12-15.
Claim 12 is directed to a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 12 describes a system comprising: an interface unit configured to receive natural language data, the natural language data comprising patient-specific clinical information; and a computing unit configured to, generate structured information by applying a large language model to the natural language data, the structured information comprising the patient-specific clinical information in a structured format, calculate the medical imaging decision support data based on the structured information, wherein the interface unit is further configured to provide the medical imaging decision support data, and wherein the interface unit is further configured to provide explanation data indicative of at least one of an explanation or a reason for at least one of the generating the structured information or for the calculating the medical imaging decision support data, the explanation data includes at least one of a citation of content from the natural language data, an interactive explanation or reasoning about the structured information or the medical imaging decision support data, or an explanation or reasoning about a tuning of the large language model, and the medical imaging decision support data is indicative of at least one of a value of a scan parameter of a scan protocol, a value of a reconstruction parameter of a reconstruction algorithm, a value of an image processing parameter of an image processing algorithm, a value change of the scan parameter of the scan protocol for a medical imaging examination of a patient by a medical imaging device, a value change of the reconstruction parameter of the reconstruction algorithm for reconstructing a medical image based on medical imaging data, or a value change of the image processing parameter of the image processing algorithm for processing the medical image which corresponds to a certain method of organizing human activity. Furthermore, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of an interface unit, a computing unit, a large language model, a structured format/information, algorithm, and a medical imaging device do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 12 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of an interface unit, a computing unit, a large language model, a structured format/information, algorithm, and a medical imaging device result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of an interface unit, a computing unit, a large language model, a structured format/information, algorithm, and a medical imaging device are recited at a high level of generality, and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing device. The presence of a generic computing device does nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPRP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of an interface unit, a computing unit, a large language model, a structured format/information, algorithm, and a medical imaging device are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer element. Therefore, the recitation of additional elements does not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim does not include additional elements that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of an interface unit, a computing unit, a large language model, a structured format/information, algorithm, and a medical imaging device are recited at a high level of generality in that it result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as the additional elements provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to other independent claims 1 and 13-15, and thus rejected on similar grounds as claim 12.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 16-23 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract in nature for the reasons presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-11 and 16-23 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-8 and 12-23 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 and 12-29 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that the pending claims provide an improvement to medical image decision making and medical imaging information. In particular, claim 1 recites, in part, “generating structured information by applying a large language model to the natural language data, the structured information comprising the patient-specific clinical information in a structured format.” Application of an LLM to natural language data in the context of the method of claim 1 results in enhanced and/or automated scan workflows or post-processing workflows.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the improvement to medical image decision making and medical imaging information is an improvement to an abstract idea and not to technology. The improvement to an abstract idea is not sufficient to meet eligibility requirements under Step 2A, Prong 2. There is no technical improvements when the additional elements apply the abstract idea and thus the claims are abstract in nature. The LLM is recited at a high level of generality in that it simply applies the abstract idea without transforming the abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights