DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the filed on 10/24/2024.
Claims 1-11 currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 10/24/2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed applications (provisional application JP2023-186819, filed 10/31/2023) under 35 U.S.C. 110(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), or under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) is acknowledged.
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.
Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0006]) there is a need to check whether transmitted and used imaging protocols match. So a need exists to organize these human interactions by/through generating examination orders based on the latest protocols using the steps of “storing imaging protocols, processing change protocol information,” etc. Applicant’s system/method/computer readable medium/apparatus is therefore a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10 and 11 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “generating examination orders based on the latest protocols,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0007]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-11 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, system/method/computer readable medium/apparatus for performing the steps of “storing imaging protocols, processing change protocol information,” etc., that is “generating examination orders based on the latest protocols,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 1-11 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. modality apparatus, picture archiving and communication systems (PACS), processors, memories, display devices, storage, input/output interfaces, input devices (Applicant’s Specification [0035], [0042], [0048]-[0058]), etc.) to perform steps of “storing imaging protocols, processing change protocol information,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Insignificant extra-solution activity
Claim(s) 1-11 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements (i.e. modality apparatus, picture archiving and communication systems (PACS), processors, memories, display devices, storage, input/output interfaces, input devices, etc.) are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept (Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. modality apparatus, picture archiving and communication systems (PACS), processors, memories, display devices, storage, input/output interfaces, input devices, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0035], [0042], [0048]-[0058], Applicant’s specification describes generic computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “modality apparatus, picture archiving and communication systems (PACS), processors, memories, display devices, storage, input/output interfaces, input devices,” etc. to perform the functions of “storing imaging protocols, processing change protocol information,” etc. The recited “modality apparatus, picture archiving and communication systems (PACS), processors, memories, display devices, storage, input/output interfaces, input devices,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, or improves any other technology, or improves a technical field, or provides a technical improvement to a technical problem. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, claims 1-11 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 2-8 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 2-8 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 2-8 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claim(s) 1, 9, 10 and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Miyamoto (US 2025/0140381).
CLAIM
As per claim , Miyamoto discloses:
a modality apparatus (Miyamoto, [0002] apparatus) that captures a medical image of a subject according to an examination order, the modality apparatus comprising:
a storage device (Miyamoto, [0031] storage apparatus) that stores an imaging protocol; and
one or more processors (Miyamoto, [0035] processor) configured to, in a case where a combination of intra-imaging protocol sequences of the imaging protocol consisting of a combination of a plurality of sequences is changed, execute processing of providing intra-modality information including the changed information to an information system that generates the examination order in a format defined between the information system and the modality apparatus (Miyamoto, Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 AU, AUB, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13 RC, SDB, Figure 14, Figure 15).
CLAIM 2
As per claim 2, Miyamoto discloses the apparatus of claim and further discloses the limitations of:
wherein the processing of providing the intra-modality information to the information system includes processing of storing the intra-modality information in a storage region accessible by the information system according to the format (Miyamoto, [0031] storage apparatus).
CLAIM 3
As per claim 3, Miyamoto discloses the apparatus of claim 2 and further discloses the limitations of:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to notify the information system in a case where new information is stored in the storage region (Miyamoto, Figure 13 RC, SDB).
CLAIM 4
As per claim 4, Miyamoto discloses the apparatus of claim and further discloses the limitations of:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to provide information on a sequence that is addable to the imaging protocol to the information system (Miyamoto, Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 AU, AUB, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13 RC, SDB, Figure 14, Figure 15).
CLAIM 5
As per claim 5, Miyamoto discloses the apparatus of claim 4 and further discloses the limitations of:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to provide the addable sequence and an applicable examination part in association with each other to the information system (Miyamoto, Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 AU, AUB, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13 RC, SDB, Figure 14, Figure 15).
CLAIM 6
As per claim 6, Miyamoto discloses the apparatus of claim and further discloses the limitations of:
wherein imaging protocol information defining the combination of the intra-imaging protocol sequences of the imaging protocol is stored in the storage device (Miyamoto, Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 AU, AUB, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13 RC, SDB, Figure 14, Figure 15), and the
one or more processors (Miyamoto, [0035] processor) are configured to, in a case where the examination order that includes information on an intra-imaging protocol sequence different from the combination of the intra-imaging protocol sequences included in the imaging protocol information in the storage device is acquired, create an imaging protocol consisting of a combination of intra-imaging protocol sequences designated in the examination order as a new imaging protocol, and store the new imaging protocol in the storage device (Miyamoto, Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 AU, AUB, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13 RC, SDB, Figure 14, Figure 15).
CLAIM 7
As per claim 7, Miyamoto discloses the apparatus of claim 6 and further discloses the limitations of:
wherein the one or more processors (Miyamoto, [0035] processor) are configured to:
notify an operator of the modality apparatus in a case of storing the new imaging protocol (Miyamoto, Figure 13 RC, SDB); and
store the new imaging protocol by assigning a new name different from an imaging protocol name of the imaging protocol already stored in the storage device (Miyamoto, Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 AU, AUB, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13 RC, SDB, Figure 14, Figure 15).
CLAIM 8
As per claim 8, Miyamoto discloses the apparatus of claim and further discloses the limitations of:
wherein imaging protocol information defining a combination of the intra-imaging protocol sequences of the imaging protocol and sequence information including information on a sequence that is addable to the imaging protocol are stored in the storage device (Miyamoto, Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 AU, AUB, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13 RC, SDB, Figure 14, Figure 15), and
the one or more processors (Miyamoto, [0035] processor) are configured to:
provide the imaging protocol information and the sequence information to the information system according to the format (Miyamoto, Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 AU, AUB, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13 RC, SDB, Figure 14, Figure 15); and
in a case where at least one of the imaging protocol information or the sequence information is changed, provide the changed information to the information system according to the format (Miyamoto, Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 AU, AUB, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13 RC, SDB, Figure 14, Figure 15).
CLAIM 9
As per claim 9, claim 9 is directed to a system. Claim 9 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above for claims 1-8. Claim 9 is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claims 1-8.
CLAIM 10
As per claim 10, claim 10 is directed to a method. Claim 10 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above for claims 1-8. Claim 10 is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claims 1-8.
CLAIM 11
As per claim 11, claim 11 is directed to a computer readable medium. Claim 11 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above for claims 1-8. Claim 11 is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claims 1-8.
CLAIM 9
As per claim 9, claim 9 is directed to a system. Claim 9 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above for claims 1-8. Claim 9 is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claims 1-8.
CLAIM 10
As per claim 10, claim 10 is directed to a method. Claim 10 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above for claims 1-8. Claim 10 is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claims 1-8.
CLAIM 11
As per claim 11, claim 11 is directed to a computer readable medium. Claim 11 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above for claims 1-8. Claim 11 is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claims 1-8.
Prior Art
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO-892 and include:
Tsubura (US 2008/0058611) disclose a system that when a communication part has accepted image data of a medical image and incidental information from a modality, an information changing part compares this incidental information with the reference information stored in the information storage part, and changes medical information included in this incidental information. An information updating part updates the statistical information database and so on based on a result of change of the incidental information.
Arima (US 2017/0316156) disclose an information processing apparatus that acquires a request for re-imaging or a request for additional imaging. The request for re-imaging is information for requesting imaging for acquiring a second medical image as re-imaging for a previously acquired first medical image.
Ratib 1993 (Reference U) disclose a hospital-wide Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) developed at the University Hospital of Geneva. It is intended as a hospital-wide Image Management System for radiological and non-radiological images and is based on an open architecture regrouping equipment from different vendors in a distributed topology..
Wong et al. 1996 (Reference V) describe the system architecture, guiding principles, and design specifications of HI-PACS and MIDS and illustrate their functions and capabilities with three implemented applications, namely, patient folder workflow, distributed object management, and multimodality imaging studies. In addition, they conclude their findings with a summary of challenges and research directions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a-5:00p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ROBERT W. MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683