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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the current action filed on 06/22/2026.
Claims 1, 3, and 10 have been amended.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
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 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis:
Independent Claim 1 is within the four statutory categories. Claim 1 is drawn to an apparatus (i.e. a machine), and dependent Claims 2-10 are further directed to an apparatus and therefore also fall into one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Analysis – Prong One:
Claim 1, which is indicative of the inventive concept, recites the following:
A medical information processing apparatus comprising: a display; and processing circuitry configured to identify a scene in a medical treatment currently performed on a patient based on image data of the medical treatment that is currently performed as an identified scene;
calculate attribute information relating to an attribute of the identified scene, the attribute information including one or more image feature amounts extracted from the image data and representing a pattern, width, or narrowed state of a blood vessel depicted in the image data;
search a medical database to acquire a piece of reference data that matches the identified scene based on the attribute information,
wherein medical data generated based on the image data of medical treatments performed on a plurality of patients in the past is accumulated in the medical database;
and cause the display to display the piece of the reference data.
The limitations as shown in underline above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of certain methods 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, identifying a scene in a medical treatment currently performed, calculating attribute information, searching a database to acquire reference data, and displaying the piece of reference data), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Dependent Claims 2-10 include other limitations directed to the abstract idea. For example, Claim 2 recites the medical data comprises medical treatment information data which is associated with a scene, and ancillary information data which is information associated with the medical treatment information data. Claim 3 recites searching the ancillary information and acquiring a piece of medical treatment information that corresponds to a piece of ancillary information that matches the attribute information as the reference data. Claim 4 recites in the medical database, the medical treatment and a plurality of scenes included in the medical treatment are associated with each other. Claim 5 recites the medical database stores proficiency information as the ancillary information data, and the proficiency information relates to a degree of proficiency of a medical technician. Claim 6 recites acquiring the piece of the reference data that matches the identified scene using the proficiency information included in the ancillary information data. Claim 7 recites the medical database comprises a favorable prognosis score as the ancillary information data, wherein the favorable prognosis score indicates a favorable prognosis tendency after the medical treatment is performed. Claim 8 recites acquiring the piece of the reference data that matches the identified scene using the favorable prognosis score included in the ancillary information data. Claim 9 recites identifying the identified scene based on an image of the medical treatment performed on the patient. Claim 10 recites displaying the piece of the reference data and the image. These limitations 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. Additionally, any limitations in the dependent claims not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 2-10 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claim 1.
Step 2A Analysis – Prong Two:
Claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the display and processing circuitry of Claim 1) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. For example, Applicant’s specification explains that the processing circuitry 15 is calculation circuitry configured to perform various kinds of calculations, and includes a processor such as a CPU or a GPU (Applicant’s specification, ¶ 0022). The display 10 displays various kinds of information. For example, the display 10 displays a test result of a patient’s sample acquired by the medical information processing apparatus 6, the medical information of the patient generated by the medical information processing apparatus 6, or a graphical user interface (GUI) for receiving various instructions from the user [0013]. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the idea. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without practical application.
Dependent Claims 3, 6, and 8-10 recite other additional elements, but these limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception. Claim 3 recites the previously recited processing circuitry and specifies the processing circuitry searches through the ancillary information data in the medical database based on the attribute information, and acquires a piece of the medical treatment information data corresponding to a piece of the ancillary information data that matches the attribute information as the reference data. Claim 6 recites the processing circuitry and specifies the processing circuitry acquires the piece of the reference data that matches the identified scene using the proficiency information included in the ancillary information data. Claim 8 recites the processing circuitry and specifies the processing circuitry acquires the piece of the reference data that matches the identified scene using the favorable prognosis score included in the ancillary information data. Claim 9 recites the processing circuitry and specifies the processing circuitry identifies the identified scene based on an image of the medical treatment performed on the patient. Claim 10 recites the previously recited processing circuitry and display and specifies the processing circuitry causes the display to display the piece of reference data and the image side by side. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claims, whether considered individually or in combination, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the processing circuitry and the display of Claim 1 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely stating “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the independent Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2, 4, 5, and 7 do not recite any additional elements and serve to only narrow the abstract idea. Claim 2 recites the medical data comprises medical treatment information data which is associated with a scene, and ancillary information data which is information associated with the medical treatment information data. Claim 4 recites in the medical database, the medical treatment and a plurality of scenes included in the medical treatment are associated with each other. Claim 5 recites the medical database stores proficiency information as the ancillary information data, and the proficiency information relates to a degree of proficiency of a medical technician. Claim 7 recites the medical database comprises a favorable prognosis score as the ancillary information data, wherein the favorable prognosis score indicates a favorable prognosis tendency after the medical treatment is performed.
Dependent Claims 3, 6, and 8-10 recite previously recited additional elements, which are not eligible for the reasons stated above, and further narrow the abstract idea. Claim 3 recites the previously recited processing circuitry and specifies the processing circuitry searches through the ancillary information data in the medical database based on the attribute information, and acquires a piece of the medical treatment information data corresponding to a piece of the ancillary information data that matches the attribute information as the reference data. Claim 6 recites the processing circuitry and specifies the processing circuitry acquires the piece of the reference data that matches the identified scene using the proficiency information included in the ancillary information data. Claim 8 recites the processing circuitry and specifies the processing circuitry acquires the piece of the reference data that matches the identified scene using the favorable prognosis score included in the ancillary information data. Claim 9 recites the processing circuitry and specifies the processing circuitry identifies the identified scene based on an image of the medical treatment performed on the patient. Claim 10 recites the previously recited processing circuitry and display and specifies the processing circuitry causes the display to display the piece of reference data and the image side by side. Hence, Claims 1-10 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
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 does not add anything that is already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of 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 1-10 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, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Oosake et al. (US 20200305698 A1) in view of Kenichi et al. (JP 2015203920 A) and Lee et al. (US 20150049174 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Oosake discloses the following:
A medical information processing apparatus comprising: a display; and processing circuitry configured to (Oosake discloses an endoscope system 9 shown in FIG. 1 comprises an endoscope 10,… a processor device 12, a display device 13, an image processing device 14, an input device 15, and a monitor device 16. The endoscope system 9 is connected to a storage device 18 through a network 17 so as to perform communication [0074].)
identify a scene in a medical treatment…performed on a patient based on image data of the medical treatment that is currently performed as an identified scene, (Oosake discloses an object of the invention is to provide an image processing device, an endoscope system, an image processing method, and a program capable of automatically differentiating a medical image including a scene of interest and supporting saving of the medical image according to a differentiation result [0012]. The endoscope system 9 shown in FIG. 1 displays, on the display device 13, an endoscope image 38 obtained by imaging a body cavity using the imaging element 28 provided in the distal end part 27 of the endoscope 10. The practitioner can perform inspection, treatment, and the like while confirming the image displayed on the display device 13 [0108].)
calculate attribute information relating to an attribute of the identified scene, (Oosake discloses the image processing device of the first aspect may further comprise a medical image feature quantity extraction unit that extracts a feature quantity from the medical image,…[0019]. In the image processing device of any one aspect of the first aspect to the fourth aspects, the scene-of-interest recognition unit may recognize a scene including a lesion as the scene of interest [0026]. The Examiner interprets the feature quantity being the attribute information as feature quantities are calculated to analyze information.)
…acquire a piece of reference data… (Oosake discloses the image processing device of the first aspect or the second aspect may further comprise a standard image acquisition unit that acquires the standard image,…[0021]. The standard image acquisition unit 42 acquires a standard image candidate 39a to be a candidate of a standard image from among medical images that are managed using a database management system or the like. The standard image is represented by reference numeral 39 and is displayed in FIG. 4 [0150].)
Oosake does not disclose the use of a medical database to find reference data which is met by Kenichi:
search a medical database to acquire a piece of reference data that matches the identified scene based on the attribute information, (Kenichi teaches the similar case search server device 120-1 is a device that executes search processing. The similar case search server device 120-1 includes a feature amount extraction unit 121, a first search unit 122, a second search unit 123, and a medical knowledge information storage unit 124 (p. 3, ¶ 0006). The Examiner interprets the medical knowledge information storage as being a medical database and the similar case data as the reference data.)
wherein medical data generated based on image data of medical treatments performed on a plurality of patients in the past is accumulated in the medical database, (Kenichi teaches a method in which a similar image having a similar feature amount of an image to be diagnosed is searched from a diagnostic image database and presented as a similar case (p. 2, ¶ 0003). As an attempt to effectively use the accumulation of medical information in such a medical institution, a similar case search that extracts similar cases from past examination texts and examination images stored in the storage and is used as a reference for the current diagnosis is performed. By referring to a past case similar to the case to be diagnosed at the time of diagnosis by a clinician or a specialist, the accuracy of diagnosis can be improved (p. 2, ¶ 0002).)
and cause the display to display the piece of the reference data. (Kenichi teaches the search result display unit 112 displays similar case information (including medical information including the medical action of the similar case and the result of the medical action) for a search user such as a doctor to view the search result. It is a display means (p. 3, ¶ 0005). The Examiner interprets the similar case data as the reference data.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modifying the system for identifying a scene and calculating attribute information relating to an attribute of the scene as disclosed by Oosake to incorporate the reference data coming from a medical database and displayed as taught by Kenichi. This modification would create a system which, by referring to a past case similar to the case at hand, improves the accuracy of medical treatment (see Kenichi, p. 2, ¶ 0002).
Oosake and Kenichi do not teach the scene being a medical treatment currently performed or the attribute information including information about a blood vessel which is met by Lee:
…a medical treatment currently performed… (Lee teaches tracing a camera position by tracing a position of the near infrared 3D camera 110 in real time with the camera position tracer 120 and calculating a real world coordinate system of the 3D blood vessel image I2 (S220);…[0023].)
the attribute information including one or more image feature amounts extracted from the image data and representing a pattern, width, or narrowed state of a blood vessel depicted in the image data; (Lee teaches extracting a blood vessel pattern with a controller 130 by extracting a first blood vessel pattern from a 3D medical image I1 of the registration target area and extracting a second blood vessel pattern from the 3D blood vessel image I2 (S230); image registration by performing position registration between a patient and the 3D medical image I1 through the extracted first and second blood vessel patterns (S240)…[0023].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modifying the system for identifying a scene and calculating attribute information relating to an attribute of the scene as disclosed by Oosake to incorporate the scene being a medical treatment currently performed or the attribute information including information about a blood vessel as taught by Lee. This modification would create a system which can perform position registration between a 3D image of a blood vessel located in the patient's target registration area in real time (see Lee, ¶ 0015).
Regarding Claim 9, Oosake, Kenichi, and Lee teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Oosake further discloses the following:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to identify the identified scene based on an image of the medical treatment performed on the patient. (Oosake discloses to provide an image processing device, an endoscope system, an image processing method, and a program capable of automatically differentiating a medical image including a scene of interest and supporting saving of the medical image according to a differentiation result [0012]. The endoscope system 9 shown in FIG. 1 displays on the display device 13, an endoscope image 38 obtained by imaging a body cavity using the imaging element 28 provided in the distal end part 27 of the endoscope 10. The practitioner can perform inspection, treatment, and the like while confirming the image displayed on the display device 13 [0108].)
Regarding Claim 10, Oosake, Kenichi, and Lee teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 9 above. Oosake further discloses the following:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display the piece of the reference data and the image [side by side] on the display. (Oosake discloses Fig. 13 is a configuration diagram of a display screen showing a first example of static image saving notification. FIG. 13 shows an example where the static image 38c saved using the image storage unit 48 is displayed on a display screen of the endoscope image…[0295, Fig. 13].)
Oosake teaches the displaying of the reference data and the image together but not side by side:
Although the display of the reference data and the image is superimposed instead of side by side, this configuration still provides the same improvements of allowing the medical technician to observe and compare the two pieces of image data easily (see Applicant's specification, ¶ 0068). Since the adjustment of the configuration to display images and data/text together or simultaneously is a key factor in allowing for the analysis and comparison of the images, the configuration is a key factor in display setup. The practice of displaying data side-by-side with data or text is well known in displays and would be obvious to try. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to incorporate the side-by-side display of images into the system of Oosake since there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to display images and data/text for analysis simultaneously and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 2, 3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Oosake, Kenichi, and Lee in view of Baldauf-Lenschen et al. (US 20240387041 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Oosake, Kenichi, and Lee teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Oosake does not disclose the following limitations met by Kenichi:
wherein the medical data accumulated in the medical database comprises: medical treatment information data of the patient, (Kenichi teaches the second search unit 123 performs processing for acquiring treatment information that is included in medical information and is a type of medical information by search (p. 4, ¶ 0001).)
wherein the medical treatment information data is associated with each scene; (Kenichi teaches the search result display unit 112 displays information on the search result case obtained as a result of the search in steps S203 and S204 (the treatment including the treatment result of the search result case and the treatment result in the treatment action) (p. 6, ¶ 0003).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modifying the system for identifying a scene and calculating attribute information relating to an attribute of the scene as disclosed by Oosake to incorporate the reference data coming from a medical database and displayed as taught by Kenichi. This modification would create a system which, by referring to a past case similar to the case at hand, improves the accuracy of medical treatment (see Kenichi, p. 2, ¶ 0002).
Oosake, Kenichi, and Lee do not teach the use of ancillary data which is met by Baldauf-Lenschen:
and ancillary information data, which is information associated with the medical… data. (Baldauf-Lenschen teaches medical data metadata 610… can be mapped to, and/or can otherwise indicate model-generated prognosis data 635, which can include one or more medical outcome prognosis scores 636, each corresponding to a predicted score (e.g. a computed probability value between 0 and 1; a corresponding predicted continuous value corresponding to a predicted measurement; a corresponding predicted category of a set of two or more categories; a predicted outcome for the medical outcome; etc.) associated with a corresponding medical outcome type 637 (e.g. a corresponding type of measurement and/or determination),…[0229]. The Examiner interprets the prognosis score as the ancillary data.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modifying the system for identifying a scene and calculating attribute information relating to an attribute of the scene as disclosed by Oosake to incorporate the use of ancillary data as taught by Baldauf-Lenschen. This modification would create a system capable of improving the technology of treatments/products/scientific fields being studied (see Baldauf-Lenschen, ¶ 0389).
Regarding Claim 3, Oosake, Kenichi, and Lee teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 2 above. Oosake further discloses:
a piece of the medical treatment information data corresponding to a piece of the…information data that matches the attribute information as the reference data. (Oosake discloses the image processing device of the first aspect may further comprise a medical image feature quantity extraction unit that extracts a feature quantity from the medical image,…[0019]. In the image processing device of any one aspect of the first aspect to the fourth aspects, the scene-of-interest recognition unit may recognize a scene including a lesion as the scene of interest [0026]. The Examiner interprets the feature quantity being the attribute information as feature quantities are calculated to analyze information.)
the processing circuitry is further configured to, when acquiring the piece of the reference data, (Oosake discloses the image processing device of the first aspect or the second aspect may further comprise a standard image acquisition unit that acquires the standard image,…[0021]. The standard image candidate acquisition unit 42 acquires a standard image candidate 39a to be a candidate of a standard image from among medical images that are managed using a database management system or the like. The standard image is represented by reference numeral 39 and is displayed in FIG. 4 [0150].)
Oosake does not teach the following limitation met by Kenichi:
…search through…information data in the medical database based on the attribute information, (Kenichi teaches the similar case search server device 120-1 is a device that executes search processing. The similar case search server device 120-1 includes a feature amount extraction unit 121, a first search unit 122, a second search unit 123, and a medical knowledge information storage unit 124 (p. 3, ¶ 0006). The Examiner interprets the medical knowledge information storage as being a medical database and the similar case data as the reference data.)
and acquire a piece of the medical treatment information data corresponding to a piece of the…information data that matches the attribute information as the reference data (Kenichi teaches processing for acquiring medical information including a medical practice and a result of the medical practice from the search result cases obtained as a result of the search by the first search unit 122 by searching. The medical information obtained as a result of the search by the second search unit 123 is information for supporting the planning of a treatment plan by a doctor or the like (p. 3, ¶ 0009).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modifying the system for identifying a scene and calculating attribute information relating to an attribute of the scene as disclosed by Oosake to incorporate the reference data coming from a medical database as taught by Kenichi. This modification would create a system which, by referring to a past case similar to the case at hand, improves the accuracy of medical treatment (see Kenichi, p. 2, ¶ 0002).
Oosake, Kenichi, and Lee do not teach the following limitation met by Baldauf-Lenschen:
…the ancillary information data…based on the attribute information,… corresponding to a piece of the ancillary information data (Baldauf-Lenschen teaches medical data metadata 610…can be mapped to, and/or can otherwise indicate model-generated prognosis data 635, which can include one or more medical outcome prognosis scores…[0029].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modifying the system for identifying a scene and calculating attribute information relating to an attribute of the scene as disclosed by Oosake to incorporate the use of ancillary data as taught by Baldauf-Lenschen. This modification would create a system capable of improving the technology of treatments/products/scientific fields being studied (see Baldauf-Lenschen, ¶ 0389).
Regarding Claim 7, Oosake, Kenichi, Lee, and Baldauf-Lenschen teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 2 above. Oosake and Kenichi do not teach the following limitations met by Baldauf-Lenschen:
wherein the medical database comprises a favorable prognosis score as the ancillary information data, (Baldauf-Lenschen teaches medical data metadata 610…can be mapped to, and/or can otherwise indicate model-generated prognosis data 635, which can include one or more medical outcome prognosis scores 636, each corresponding to a predicted score (e.g. a computed probability value between 0 and 1; a corresponding predicted continuous value corresponding to a predicted measurement; a corresponding predicted category of a set of two or more categories; a predicted outcome for the medical outcome; etc.) associated with a corresponding medical outcome type 637 (e.g. a corresponding type of measurement and/or determination), …[0229]. The Examiner interprets the prognosis score as the ancillary data.)
wherein the favorable prognosis score indicates a favorable prognosis tendency after the medical treatment is performed. (Baldauf-Lenschen teaches medical outcome prognosis scores 636 of the corresponding medical outcome type 637 for this set of prospective participants; and/or to have this set of prospective participants grouped into at least one control group for the clinical trial and into at least one investigative group (i.e. experimental group and/or treatment group) for the clinical trial, via a randomization algorithm, as a function of these medical outcome prognosis scores 636…[0297].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modifying the system for identifying a scene and calculating attribute information relating to an attribute of the scene as disclosed by Oosake to incorporate the use of ancillary data as taught by Baldauf-Lenschen. This modification would create a system capable of improving the technology of treatments/products/scientific fields being studied (see Baldauf-Lenschen, ¶ 0389).
Regarding Claim 8, Oosake, Kenichi, Lee, and Baldauf-Lenschen teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 2 above. Oosake does not disclose the following limitations met by Kenichi:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire the piece of the reference data that matches the identified scene (Kenichi teaches the similar case search server device 120-1 is a device that executes search processing. The similar case search server device 120-1 includes a feature amount extraction unit 121, a first search unit 122, a second search unit 123, and a medical knowledge information storage unit 124 (p. 3, ¶ 0006). The Examiner interprets the medical knowledge information storage as being a medical database and the similar case data as the reference data.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modifying the system for identifying a scene and calculating attribute information relating to an attribute of the scene as disclosed by Oosake to incorporate the reference data coming from a medical database and displayed as taught by Kenichi. This modification would create a system which, by referring to a past case similar to the case at hand, improves the accuracy of medical treatment (see Kenichi, p. 2, ¶ 0002).
Oosake, Kenichi, and Lee do not teach the following limitations met by Baldauf-Lenschen:
…using the favorable prognosis score included in the ancillary information data. (Baldauf-Lenschen teaches medical data metadata 610…can be mapped to, and/or can otherwise indicate model-generated prognosis data 635, which can include one or more medical outcome prognosis scores 636, each corresponding to a predicted score …associated with a corresponding medical outcome type 637… [0229]. The Examiner interprets the prognosis score as the ancillary data.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modifying the system for identifying a scene and calculating attribute information relating to an attribute of the scene as disclosed by Oosake to incorporate the use of ancillary data as taught by Baldauf-Lenschen. This modification would create a system capable of improving the technology of treatments/products/scientific fields being studied (see Baldauf-Lenschen, ¶ 0389).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Oosake, Kenichi, Lee, and Baldauf-Lenschen in view of Kang et al. (KR 20200105065 A).
Regarding Claim 4, Oosake, Kenichi, Lee, and Baldauf-Lenschen teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 2 above. Oosake, Kenichi, Lee, and Baldauf-Lenschen do not teach the following limitations met by Kang:
wherein in the medical database, the medical treatment and a plurality of scenes included in the medical treatment are associated with each other. (Kang teaches the processor 104 associates the medical treatment -related information input through the user terminal 300 with image data and stores it in the memory unit RM (p. 6, ¶ 0003).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modifying the system for identifying a scene and calculating attribute information relating to an attribute of the scene as disclosed by Oosake to incorporate the medical treatment being associated with the image scenes as taught by Kang. This modification would create a system capable of efficiently managing and utilizing medical image data (see Kang, p. 2, ¶ 0004).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Oosake, Kenichi, Lee, and Baldauf-Lenschen in view of Jesneck et al. (US 20240249831 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Oosake, Kenichi, Lee, and Baldauf-Lenschen teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 2 above. Oosake does not disclose the following limitations met by Kenichi:
wherein the medical database stores… (Kenichi teaches the similar case search server device 120-1 is a device that executes search processing. The similar case search server device 120-1 includes a feature amount extraction unit 121,… a medical knowledge information storage unit 124 (p. 3, ¶ 0006). The Examiner interprets the medical knowledge information storage as being a medical database.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modifying the system for identifying a scene and calculating attribute information relating to an attribute of the scene as disclosed by Oosake to incorporate the reference data coming from a medical database as taught by Kenichi. This modification would create a system which, by referring to a past case similar to the case at hand, improves the accuracy of medical treatment (see Kenichi, p. 2, ¶ 0002).
Oosake, Kenichi, Lee, and Baldauf-Lenschen do not teach the ancillary data being proficiency information which is met by Jesneck:
…proficiency information as the ancillary information data, (Jesneck teaches FIG. 7A is a pie-chart representation of a distribution of outcome probabilities for multiple component tasks of a procedure, and also shows a related competency score (either for an individual practitioner or for a group of practitioners) for the tasks. FIG. 7B displays an exemplary aggregate competency distribution for the tasks [0090]. The Examiner interprets competency levels as proficiency information.)
wherein the proficiency information relates to a degree of proficiency of a medical technician who performed the medical treatment on the patient. (Jesneck teaches a competency score may be calculated for a single individual, a team, a department, entire hospital, etc. Moreover, a competency score may be calculated for a portion of a task, a whole task, a procedure, a set of procedures, etc. [0079].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modifying the system for identifying a scene and calculating attribute information relating to an attribute of the scene as disclosed by Oosake to incorporate the ancillary data being proficiency information as taught by Jesneck. This modification would create a system capable of assessing the overall quality and performance of an individual or hospital, particularly in view of outcomes (see Jesneck, ¶ 0003).
Regarding Claim 6, Oosake, Kenichi, Lee, and Baldauf-Lenschen teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 2 above. Oosake further discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire the piece of the reference data that matches the identified scene (Oosake discloses the image processing device of the first aspect or the second aspect may further comprise a standard image acquisition unit that acquires the standard image,…[0021]. The standard image candidate acquisition unit 42 acquires a standard image candidate 39a to be a candidate of a standard image from among medical images that are managed using a database management system or the like. The standard image is represented by reference numeral 39 and is displayed in FIG. 4 [0150].)
Oosake, Kenichi, Lee, and Baldauf-Lenschen do not disclose the use of proficiency information as the ancillary data which is met by Jesneck:
using the proficiency information included in the ancillary information data. (Jesneck teaches FIG. 7A is a pie-chart representation of a distribution of outcome probabilities for multiple component tasks of a procedure, and also shows a related competency score (either for an individual practitioner or for a group of practitioners) for the tasks. FIG. 7B displays an exemplary aggregate competency distribution for the tasks [0090].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modifying the system for identifying a scene and calculating attribute information relating to an attribute of the scene as disclosed by Oosake to incorporate the ancillary data being proficiency information as taught by Jesneck. This modification would create a system capable of assessing the overall quality and performance of an individual or hospital, particularly in view of outcomes (see Jesneck, ¶ 0003).
Response to Arguments
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 101 to Claims 1-10, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated in light of the amendments above.
Applicant argues Claim 1 does not recite teaching, following rules, or managing interpersonal interactions. Rather the claim recites identifying a scene from medical image data, extracting attributes from the image data, searching a medical database using the extracted attributes, and displaying matching medical-treatment reference data. These operations are directed to computerized processing of medical image data and retrieval of corresponding medical treatment image data. The claimed operations therefore do not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified in the 2019 PEG, including methods of organizing human activity (see Applicant’s Remarks, p. 8).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The human interaction subgroup “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” would include a person following rules or instructions to analyze image data, extract attribute information, and identify matching pieces of information. It is important to note that the text within the parentheses stating social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions are provided as examples and not an exclusive listing and that the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility on p. 5 states certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping.
Applicant argues even if the claim were deemed to recite a judicial exception, the claim integrates any such exception into a practical application because the processing circuitry analyzes image data of an ongoing medical treatment to generate image-derived feature information and uses that feature information to retrieve corresponding medical treatment reference data from a medical database for display during the medical treatment. The claimed subject matter therefore improves the manner in which medical treatment image data is processed and utilized during a medical procedure and is not directed merely to presenting information for human evaluation (p. 8-9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The distributed nature of the claimed invention is not, in itself, dispositive in determining whether the claimed invention recites an abstract idea because the concept of identifying and determining medical reference information is not a technological solution to a technological problem – that is, the identified problem of medical information processing has existed since long before the advent of computer technology, and thus, cannot properly be considered a technological problem with the claimed invention providing a technological improvement and/or an improvement to the computer itself.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 103 to Claims 1-10, Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. Therefore the rejection has been withdrawn. However, in light of the amendments, a new rejection has been made, rejecting the claims over Oosake in view of Kenichi and Lee.
Applicant argues Kenichi, [0018], states: "The feature extraction unit 121 performs processing such as extracting features from the search input case entered via the search instruction input unit 111 of the similar case search client device 110. The first search unit 122 compares the features of the search input case extracted by the feature extraction unit 121 with the features of the group of target cases stored in the case management server device 130 (medical document storage unit 131 and medical image storage unit 132), and performs processing to search for and retrieve cases from the group of target cases whose features are similar to those of the search input case." In other words, Kenichi is based on textual information regarding the search input case, and the search is conducted on the case management server device 130 based on features derived from that textual information. Claim 1, as amended, the processing circuitry identifies a scene in a medical treatment currently performed on a patient, calculates attribute information regarding that scene, and then searches a medical database containing accumulated medical data in the past based on this calculated attribute information. In other words, the processing circuitry searches the medical database for past imaging data that approximates the current situation, based on the imaging data captured during the medical treatment currently performed (p. 10-11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kenichi explicitly states the information used for finding a similar case includes medical image data (see p. 4, ¶ 0009 of Kenichi which states “When a search user such as a doctor inputs a search input case (including an examination image as a medical image and a medical text as a medical document in this embodiment) to the similar case search client device 110, in step S201, The search instruction input unit 111 inputs the search input case to the similar case search system 100-1. Here, in the present embodiment, as a search input case, a CT image, an MRI image, an X-ray image, an examination image that is a medical image such as an image captured by a general-purpose digital camera, an observation result, and an observation…”). There is nothing in the claims that states that the medical data generated based off of the image data cannot being linked using text information relating to the image. Therefore, using broadest reasonable interpretation, Kenichi meets this argued limitation.
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 OLIVIA R GEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0944. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/OLIVIA R. GEDRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights