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 .
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 12-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 12-13 do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is software per se, since it is directed to a stacked system with no recitation of hardware.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because it is directed to a computer program product which is software per se or computer program without reciting any structure.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 14 recite limitations that been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it they use a generic placeholders “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the claim have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-6, 10, 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1.1
With regard to claim 1, D1 teach computer implemented method for performing a check of a stacked system comprising: receiving input data (see fig. 1, 2, ¶ 87); applying a first function to the input data to generate an intermediate output data (see fig. 1, 2: body part detection read as first function; alternatively, performing phase classification or performing liver detection may be read as first function); and performing a check based on the intermediate output data and if the check is positive (see fig. 1, 2: result of body part detection is checked if it is a body part of interest; alternatively, result of phase classification is checked if it is single phase or result of liver detection is checked if it satisfies a minimum amount), providing the intermediate output data to a second function at least as part of an intermediate input data, applying the second function to the intermediate input data to generate an output data, and providing the output data (see fig. 1, 2: if it is a body part of interest, then second function of performing phase classification is performed; alternatively, if it is single phase a second function of liver detection is performed; alternatively if the minimum amount is satisfied, a second function of lesion detection is performed).
With regard to claim 2, D1 teach method of claim 1, wherein if the check is negative, the method comprises: providing a warning message (see ¶ 94: cause of rejection may be communicated to user via interface, i.e., rejection being no liver present in the image, not a single-phase input volume, not enough liver present in the image, etc.).
With regard to claim 3, D1 teach method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first function comprises a first trained function, or the second function comprises a second trained function (see ¶¶ 47-49: trained artificial intelligence).
With regard to claim 4, D1 teach method of claim 1, wherein the providing the output data comprises: providing the output data as final output data to at least one of a user, a database, or an imaging device, or providing the output data as second intermediate input data to a third function after performing the check (see fig. 20: results are communicated to user through a display interface; see fig. 1, 2: results output to medical imaging viewer or downstream computing system).
With regard to claim 5, D1 teach method of claim 4, further comprising at least one of if the output data is provided as final output data: acquiring medical image data with a medical imaging system based on the final output data, automatically including the final output data in a patient record, or providing a diagnosis based on the final output data (see fig. 1, 2: list of lesions with classifications output).
With regard to claim 6, D1 teach method of claim 1, wherein the check is rule-based (see fig. 1, 2: checks are inherently rule-based).
With regard to claim 10, D1 teach method of claim 1, wherein the input data comprises a medical image data (see fig. 1, 2, abstract: medical image data).
With regard to claims 12, 14-16, see discussion of claim 1.
With regard to claim 13, see discussion of claim 6.
With regard to claim 17, D1 teach method of claim 10, wherein the input data comprises a medical radiology image data (see ¶ 45: radiology image).
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 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 7-9, 11, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
With regard to claim 7, D1 teach method of claim 6, wherein the performing the check comprises: providing the intermediate output data to a user (see ¶ 94: cause of rejection may be communicated to user via interface, i.e., rejection being no liver present in the image, not a single-phase input volume, not enough liver present in the image, etc.), but fail to explicitly teach and receiving a user input based on the provided intermediate output data, wherein the user input indicates whether the check is positive or negative. However, Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that providing an result to a user and receiving feedback from the user is extremely well known in the art before the effective filing date and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate known teachings into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable results. The motivation for incorporating feedback from the user would have been to incorporate expert opinion of trained medical professional to check whether the evaluation or classification of medical images is correct and provide a correction if necessary.
With regard to claim 8, D1 teach method of claim 7, wherein the intermediate output data is provided to the user if the rule-based check is negative (see ¶ 94: cause of rejection may be communicated to user via interface, i.e., rejection being no liver present in the image, not a single-phase input volume, not enough liver present in the image, etc.).
With regard to claim 9, D1 fail to explicitly teach method of claim 7, wherein the user input comprises one of: an agreement of the user with the intermediate output data, the agreement indicating a positive check, a disagreement of the user with the intermediate output data, the disagreement indicating a negative check, and a correction of the intermediate output data, wherein the corrected intermediate output data replaces the intermediate output data during a following procedure, the corrected intermediate output data indicating a positive check based on the corrected intermediate output data. However, Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that providing a result to a user and receiving feedback from the user is extremely well known in the art before the effective filing date and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate known teachings into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable results. The motivation for incorporating feedback from the user would have been to incorporate expert opinion of trained medical professional to check whether the evaluation or classification of medical images is correct and provide a correction if necessary.
With regard to claim 11, D1 teach method of claim 10, wherein the input data comprises medical image data of a spine and the intermediate output data comprises at least one of: a position of at least one
With regard to claim 18, see discussion of claim 7.
With regard to claim 19, D1 teach method of claim 7, wherein the input data comprises a medical image data (see abstract, ¶ 45: medical image data).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH YENTRAPATI whose telephone number is (571)270-7982. The examiner can normally be reached on 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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on (571) 272-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AVINASH YENTRAPATI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
1 US Publication No. 2022/0139531.
Prosecution Insights