CTNF 19/070,593 CTNF 95331 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims The original claims 1-16 filed 03/05/2025 are pending and have been examined. Priority 02-27 Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2024-034929 filed 03/07/2024 Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS)(s) submitted on 03/05/2025 follow(s) the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been fully considered by the Examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 9 recites the limitation “when processing of the second medical image by the execution application ends before processing of the first medical image can be started, the processing circuitry is configured to set a timing of processing of the second medical image by the execution application to be before processing of the first medical image by the execution application regardless of the priority” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because claim 8 recites “estimate a processing time required for processing the medical images”. The processing order in claim 9 depends on the priority of the first image and the estimated processing time of each image. The Examiner suggests amending to recite “when processing of the second medical image by the execution application is predicted to end [[ends]] before processing of the first medical image can be started…” Appropriate correction is required. Subject Matter Eligibility Dependent claim 9 is determined to be subject matter eligible according to the MPEP for reciting the “medical information processing device according to claim 8, wherein the processing target… includes a first medical image acquired earlier and a second medical image acquired later, and when processing of the second medical image by the execution application ends before processing of the first medical image can be started, the processing circuitry is configured to set a timing of processing of the second medical image by the execution application to be before processing of the first medical image by the execution application regardless of the priority.” The claim is setting the timing and order of image processing operations by the execution application. The Specification at pg. 18 describes features of the disclosed processing by the execution application as reducing wasteful processing in applications. The combination of claim limitations in dependent claim 9 result in this reduction of wasteful processing by a computer, which is a technical solution to a technical problem. As such, this combination amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using the general-purpose computer. Therefore, as the additional element improves operation of the computer , it provides a practical application under subject eligibility analysis Step 2A2, and claim 9 is subject matter eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 (YES) The claims fall within at least one statutory category (i.e., device, process, manufacture). Step 2A1 (YES) The limitations of automatically select, from among a plurality of applications, an execution application to be executed on a medical image that is a processing target; execute the execution application; set execution information regarding execution of processing of the processing target by the execution application on the basis of a result of referring to an examination end determination rule for supplementary information attached to the medical image; display the set execution information; and update the examination end determination rule on the basis of a past result of processing by the execution application , as drafted (claims 1 and 12 being representative), is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to perform medical image processing for diagnostic purposes (see Spec. pg. 1, para. 3-4 and pg. 4, para. 3 describing medical image processing as a human activity; and also Spec. pg. 7, last para. and pg. 11, para. 3) in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra . The rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “automatically select… execute… set… display… and update…” as indicated supra . Other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra ), i.e., a system implemented by a data processor (computer), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. The Examiner notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A2 (NO) The judicial exception, the above-identified abstract idea, is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a medical image processing device (claims 14, 16) having processing circuitry (claims 1, 12) / a computer (claims 13-16) and a display (claims 12, 14); and a computer-readable non-transitory recording medium (CRM) (claims 15-16) that implement the identified abstract idea. The additional elements aforementioned are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer or computer component performing a generic computer or computer component function that facilitates the identified abstract idea) such that these amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see Specification, e.g., at pg. 4, para. 3; pg. 6, para. 3-5). See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B (NO) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a medical image processing device (claims 14, 16) having processing circuitry (claims 1, 12) / a computer (claims 13-16) and/or a display (claims 12, 14); and a computer-readable non-transitory recording medium (CRM) (claims 15-16) to perform the method (represented by claims 1 and 12) amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-11 , when analyzed as a whole, are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims, when considered alone or as an ordered combination, either (1) merely further define the abstract idea, (2) do not further limit the claim to a practical application, or (3) do not provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. Claims 4, 7 and 10 merely further describe(s) the abstract idea (e.g. the examination end determination rule including a timeout time at which an acceptance time for accepting medical images to be processed collectively by the execution application ends; the supplementary information includes a priority regarding the order in which the medical images are executed; the supplementary information includes a DICOM tag). See analysis, supra. Claim(s) 2-6, 8 and 10-11 merely further describe(s) the additional element(s) of processing circuitry, for example: In claim 2, updating the examination end determination rule on the basis of a result of processing by the execution application manually operated by a user. In claim 3, updating the examination end determination rule on the basis of a result of processing by the execution application after a certain period of time has elapsed since processing by the execution application has ended. In claim 4, setting the execution information for starting processing of the processing target by the execution application when the timeout time has expired. In claim 5, setting at least one of a timing for starting processing by the execution application, a timing for ending processing by the execution application, or the timeout time as the execution information, In claim 6, setting an execution order for executing a plurality of medical images when the plurality of medical images is executed by the execution application, In claim 8, estimating a processing time required for processing the medical images by the execution application; and setting an execution order for executing the plurality of medical images on the basis of the priority and the processing time. In claim 10, setting the execution information on the basis of similarity between a DICOM tag and the types of DICOM tags defined in the examination end determination rule; In claim 11, weighting each DICOM tag of a plurality of DICOM tags and calculating the similarity on the basis of the weighted DICOM tags. See analysis, supra. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Nishitaka et al. (US 2022/0139528 A1; “Nishitaka” herein) . Re. Claim 1, Nishitaka teaches a medical information processing device (100a) (see Fig. 1) , comprising processing circuitry (150) (see Fig. 2) configured to: automatically select, from among a plurality of applications (see Fig. 2 elements 151-156) , an execution application (154) to be executed on a medical image that is a processing target (Fig. 4 (S2), [0069] teach an inputting function 153 inputs collected non-image information to the analyzing function 154 (automatically selected). See also [0020], [0033].) ; execute the execution application (Fig. 4 (S3), [0070] teach the analyzing function 154 analyzes the medical image acquired at S1 by using the non-image information acquired at S2. See also [0018], [0033].) ; set execution information (S7) regarding execution of processing of the processing target by the execution application (S8) on the basis of a result (“Yes” at S6) of referring to an examination end determination rule (S5) for supplementary information attached to the medical image (“Yes” at S5) (Fig. 4, [0073] teach when the non-image information as the collection object is added to or updated in the electronic medical chart system 202 ("Yes" at S5) and the updated non-image information satisfies the prescribed condition ("Yes" at S6), the collecting function 152 collects this non-image information (S7). The Examiner interprets S5 as an examination end determination rule, since S5 may move the process to the end (“No” at S5 and “Yes” at S13). See also [0074], [0081]-[0082].) ; and update the examination end determination rule (“Yes” at S5) (see [0073]) on the basis of a past result of processing by the execution application (the medical image acquired at S1) (Fig. 4, [0074]-[0075] teach the analyzing function 154 reanalyzes the medical image acquired at S1 by using the additionally collected non-image information (S8); and determines whether the analysis result differs before and after the reanalysis (S9). Fig. 4, [0079] teach the process returns to S5 when the collecting function 152 determines that the determination timing has come. Additionally, Fig. 4, [0080]-[0082] teach “No” at S5 leads to process completion.) Re. Claim 3, Nishitaka teaches the medical information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to update the examination end determination rule (“Yes” at S5) on the basis of a result of processing by the execution application (Fig. 4, [0074]-[0075] teach the analyzing function 154 reanalyzes the medical image acquired at S1 by using the additionally collected non-image information (S8); and determines whether the analysis result differs before and after the reanalysis (S9).) after a certain period of time has elapsed since processing by the execution application has ended (“Yes” at S14) (Fig. 4, [0079] teach the collecting function 152 determines whether the prescribed period has ended (S13). When the prescribed period has not ended ("No" at S13), the collecting function 152 determines whether the determination timing has come (S14). For example, the collecting function 152 determines that the determination timing has come ("Yes" at S14) when the prescribed time interval has elapsed since previous determination on whether the nonimage information is updated in or added to the electronic medical chart system 202, or previous execution of the collection process of the non-image information. The process returns to S5 when the collecting function 152 determines that the determination timing has come.) Re. Claim 12, the subject matter of claim 12 is essentially defined in terms of a system, which is technically corresponding to system claim 1. Since claim 12 is analogous to claim 1, it is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 1. Further, Nishitaka teaches display the set execution information on a display (Fig. 1, [0019] teach the analysis application 40 is executed as one function of a medical information integrated viewer 50 that displays information of treatments or examinations on the patient… The medical information integrated viewer 50 may also have a function as a graphical user interface (GUI) that receives data input. [0022] teaches collecting the non-image information used for analyzing the medical image (set execution information), e.g., by providing in the analysis application 40 a parameter for inputting prescribed non-image information.) Re. Claim 13, the subject matter of claim 13 is essentially defined in terms of a method, which is technically corresponding to system claim 1. Since claim 13 is analogous to claim 1, it is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 1. The Examiner notes that Nishitaka teaches a computer (150) . Re. Claim 14, the subject matter of claim 14 is essentially defined in terms of a method, which is technically corresponding to system claims 1 and 12. Since claim 14 is analogous to claims 1 and 12, it is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claims 1 and 12. The Examiner notes that Nishitaka teaches a computer (150) . Re. Claim 15, the subject matter of claim 15 is essentially defined in terms of a manufacture, which is technically corresponding to system claim 1. Since claim 15 is analogous to claim 1, it is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claim 1. Further, Nishitaka teaches a computer-readable non-transitory recording medium storing a program causing a computer to perform the method of claim 1 ([0033] teaches the processing circuit 150 is a processor that reads from the memory 120 (see Fig. 2) and executes the computer programs, thereby implementing functions corresponding to the respective computer programs. [0034] teaches, for instance, the respective processing functions… as constituent elements of the processing circuit 150, are stored in the memory 120 in the forms of computer programs executable by a computer.) Re. Claim 16, the subject matter of claim 16 is essentially defined in terms of a manufacture, which is technically corresponding to system claims 1 and 12. Since claim 16 is analogous to claims 1 and 12, it is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of claims 1 and 12. Further, Nishitaka teaches a computer-readable non-transitory recording medium storing a program causing a computer (150) of a medical information processing device (100a) to perform the method of claims 1 and 12 ([0033] teaches the processing circuit 150 is a processor that reads from the memory 120 (see Fig. 2) and executes the computer programs, thereby implementing functions corresponding to the respective computer programs. [0034] teaches, for instance, the respective processing functions… as constituent elements of the processing circuit 150, are stored in the memory 120 in the forms of computer programs executable by a computer.) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishitaka . Re. Claim 2, Nishitaka teaches the medical information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to update the examination end determination rule (“Yes” at S5) on the basis of a result (the analysis result) of processing by the execution application […] (Fig. 4, [0074]-[0075] teach the analyzing function 154 reanalyzes the medical image acquired at S1 by using the additionally collected non-image information (S8); and determines whether the analysis result differs before and after the reanalysis (S9). Fig. 4, [0079] teach the process returns to S5 when the collecting function 152 determines that the determination timing has come. Note: [0077] teaches receiving an operation of instructing display of data from the user (a manual operation).) Nishitaka may not explicitly teach the execution application manually operated by a user ; however, this would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. It is well settled that providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace a manual activity does not constitute an "invention." See In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192. However, the opposite is also true; replacing an automatic activity with a manual one is an obvious variation on the teaching of the prior where the prior art teaches that the functionality is performed automatically. Here the prior art teaches automatic application of a computer application (and notably teaches manual application of a particular one). Thus, the manual application of the claimed execution application feature would have been prima facie been obvious in view of Nishitaka. Nishitaka teaches the analyzing function (the recited “execution application”) is implemented by the system to analyze/reanalyze a medical image using collected non-image information (see at least Nishitaka at Figs. 1-2, 4). Prospectively, should the Applicant amend the claim to require that the execution of the application occur without user intervention (though it is unclear how this would occur since some user intervention is required, otherwise, how would the system know which program to use and/or which data to process?), such a feature would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. It is well settled that providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace a manual activity does not constitute an “invention.” See In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishitaka in view of Ono et al. (US 2023/0067053 A1; “Ono” herein) . Re. Claim 4, Nishitaka teaches the medical information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the examination end determination rule (“Yes” at S5) includes a timeout time (“Yes” at S14) at which an acceptance time for accepting […] to be processed collectively by the execution application ends (Fig. 4, [0079] teach when the prescribed period has not ended ("No" at S13), the collecting function 152 determines whether the determination timing has come (S14). For example, the collecting function 152 determines that the determination timing has come ("Yes" at S14) when the prescribed time interval has elapsed since the previous determination on whether the nonimage information (to be processed collectively) is updated in or added… The process returns to S5 when the collecting function 152 determines that the determination timing has come.) , and the processing circuitry is configured to set execution information for starting processing of the processing target by the execution application when the timeout time has expired ([0073]-[0074] teach, when the non-image information as the collection object is added to or updated in the electronic medical chart system 202 ("Yes" at S5) (when the timeout time has expired) and the updated non-image information satisfies the prescribed condition ("Yes" at S6), the collecting function 152 collects this non-image information (S7) (sets execution information for starting processing); and the analyzing function 154 reanalyzes the medical image (the processing target) acquired at S1 by using the additionally collected non-image information (S8).) Nishitaka may not teach an acceptance time for accepting medical images to be processed collectively. Ono teaches an acceptance time for accepting medical images to be processed collectively by the execution application ends (Fig. 2, [0046] teach the time period during which the processes at steps S101 through S110 are performed is the time period during which the processes are performed on the received raw data or DICOM data after the reception of the raw data or the DICOM data is completed (an acceptance time ends).) Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the analysis support apparatus, system, and method of Nishitaka to perform image processing with data collection periods for image data in addition to the non-image data and to use this information as part of an analysis assisting device, system, and recording medium as taught by Ono, with the motivation of improving medical diagnostic support and medical image processing (see Ono at para. 0013). Re. Claim 5, Nishitaka/Ono teaches the medical information processing device according to claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to set at least one of a timing for starting processing by the execution application (Nishitaka Fig. 4, [0046] teaches the determination timing… may be set to a prescribed time interval/period, e.g., the post-diagnostic follow-up period.) , a timing for ending processing by the execution application (Ono Fig. 2, [0046] teaches the time period (timing) during which the processes at steps S101 through S110 are performed… on the received raw data or DICOM data after the reception of the raw data or the DICOM data is completed. Nishitaka Fig. 4, [0082] teaches determining that the prescribed period has ended in the process at S13 (“Yes” at S13), at which point the flowchart process is completed.) , or the timeout time as the execution information (“Yes” at S14) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishitaka in view of Dwivedi (US 2020/0066006 A1) . Re. Claim 6, Nishitaka teaches the medical information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to set […] for executing […] when the […] executed by the execution application ([0050] teach a prescribed condition (execution order) may be set in advanced. [0073] teaches when the non-image information is added/updated… and the updated non-image information satisfies the prescribed condition (“Yes” at S6), the collecting function 152 collects the non-image information (S7); and the analyzing function 154 reanalyzes the medical image acquired at S1 by using the additionally collected non-image information (S8) (executed by the execution application).) Nishitaka does not teach set an execution order for executing a plurality of medical images when the plurality of medical images are executed by the execution application. Dwivedi teaches set an execution order for executing a plurality of medical images when the plurality of medical images are executed by the execution application ([0033], [0048] teach: Once the optimal weighted execution sequence is determined, the processors 210 may execute the selected reconstruction algorithms according to the optimal weighted sequence. Each of the selected reconstruction algorithms is executed on the image data (a plurality of medical images) iteratively based on the respective weight, and also sequentially based on the execution order (set).) Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the analysis support apparatus, system, and method of Nishitaka to perform various image processing techniques and to use this information as part of an image reconstruction process as taught by Dwivedi, with the motivation of improving medical image processing (e.g., image reconstruction) (see Dwivedi at para. 0029, 0048, 0057). Re. Claim 7, Nishitaka/Dwivedi teaches the medical information processing device according to claim 6, wherein the supplementary information includes a priority regarding the order in which the medical images are executed (Nishikata Fig. 4 (S3), [0070] teach the analyzing function 154 analyzes the medical image acquired at S1 by using the non-image information acquired at S2 (supplementary information). Dwivedi [0033], [0053] teaches executing the selected reconstruction algorithms according to the optimal weighted sequence... Each of the selected reconstruction algorithms is executed on the image data (the medical images) iteratively based on the respective weight (priority), and also sequentially based on the execution order. See also Dwivedi [0054]-[0057].) 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishitaka in view of Dwivedi and Kuo (US 2017/0046482 A1) . Re. Claim 8, Nishitaka/Dwivedi teaches the medical information processing device according to claim 7, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: […] a processing time required for processing the medical images by the execution application (see Dwivedi [0028]) ; and set an execution order for executing the plurality of medical images on the basis of the priority and the processing time (Dwivedi [0028] teaches the weighted execution sequences are determined based on various factors such as the preferred processing parameter and time and computing constraints… representing at least a computation time requirement. Dwivedi [0033], [0048] teach, once the optimal weighted execution sequence is determined, the processors 210 may execute the selected reconstruction algorithms according to the optimal weighted sequence… Each of the selected reconstruction algorithms is executed on the image data (the plurality of medical images) iteratively based on the respective weight (priority), and also sequentially based on the execution order (set). See also Dwivedi [0053], “images”; and [0054]-[0057] discussing the weighting. Nishitaka/Dwivedi may not teach estimate a processing time required for processing the medical images by the execution application. Kuo teaches estimate a processing time required for processing the medical images by the execution application ([0012] teaches graphical indications of each scan in a scan queue are provided in an order at the display device which corresponds to a scan order in a scan prescription. The graphical indications are updated as respective scans occur at the imaging device to show an indication of type of scan before a scan occurs, a timer and/or an acquisition progress indicator for a respective scan as the scan is occurring… The graphical indications are provided in conjunction with a timer showing a total time and/or a total estimated time , for implementing the scan prescription, in addition to the individual timers for each of the scans… When estimated processing time is available, a time and/or progress status of data processing may also be provided.) Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the analysis support apparatus, system, and method of Nishitaka/Dwivedi to perform various image processing techniques and to use this information as part of a medical imaging system for scan queue management as taught by Kuo, with the motivation of improving medical imaging and image guidance for clinical diagnosis, patient monitoring, and patient scan management (see Kuo at para. 0002-0003, 0007, 0010) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishitaka in view of Nye et al. (US 2022/0284579 A1; “Nye” herein) . Re. Claim 10, Nishitaka teaches the medical information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the supplementary information includes […], and the processing circuitry is configured to set the execution information on the basis of […] (see claim 1 prior art rejection. [0012] teaches storing medical images regarding patients in a format based on digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM).) Nishitaka may not teach a DICOM tag ; or set the execution information on the basis of similarity between a DICOM tag attached to the medical image and a DICOM tag defined in the examination end determination rule. Nye teaches set the execution information on the basis of similarity between a DICOM tag attached to the medical image and a DICOM tag defined in the examination end determination rule ([0098] teaches a radiologist worklist (execution information) is prioritized (set) by putting stat images first, followed by images in order from oldest to newest, for example. [0101] teaches creating rules to prioritize the radiologist worklist based on certain information, e.g., a DICOM tag indicating a critical finding (defined). [0157] teaches these rules can be stored such as in a DICOM header of an image sent to the PACS 1044... An AI model can be used to set a score or a flag in the DICOM header (e.g., tag the DICOM header) (a DICOM tag attached to the medical image) to be used [as] a rule to prioritize those exams… Thus, a DICOM header tag (e.g., reflecting the score or flag, etc.) can be used to build priority rules… HL7 messages can be communicated to and from the imaging device 1010… to provide prioritization instructions as well as DICOM data… Using DICOM header and HL7 information (on the basis of similarity), a client system, such as the RIS 2520, PACS 1044, etc., can determine priority.) Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the analysis support apparatus, system, and method of Nishitaka to perform various image processing techniques and to use this information as part of systems and methods to deliver point of care alerts for radiological findings as taught by Nye, with the motivation of improving medical image processing (e.g., reconstruction, quality control), medical image analysis, diagnostic support / computer aided diagnosis, and outcomes (see Nye at para. 0006, 0044, 0067, 0069, 0158) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishitaka in view of Nye and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (from U.S. Patent Application No. 19/070,593; hereinafter “AAPA”) . Note: Citations to AAPA refer to the Specification dated 03/05/2025. Re. Claim 11, Nishitaka/Nye teaches the medical information processing device according to claim 10, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: weight each of a plurality of DICOM tags; and […] on the basis of the weighted plurality of DICOM tags (Nye [0157] teaches rules can be created to determine image/exam priority, and those rules can be stored such as in a DICOM header of an image sent to the PACS 1044. Nye [0160] teaches storing multiple images therein. Nye [0157], [0160] teaches an AI model can be used to set a score or a flag in the DICOM header (e.g., tag the DICOM header) to be used [as] a rule to prioritize those exams. Thus, a DICOM header tag (e.g., reflecting the score or flag, etc.) can be used to build priority rules. For example, a flag can be used to indicate an urgent or STAT exam to be reviewed. A score can be used to assign a relative degree of priority (weight each of the DICOM tags), for example. HL7 messages can be communicated… to provide prioritization instructions as well as DICOM data… Using DICOM header and HL7 information, a client system, such as the RIS 2520, PACS 1044, etc., can determine priority.) Nishitaka/Nye may not teach calculate the similarity . AAPA teaches that it was old and well-known in the art of medical image processing to calculate a similarity. The feature of “calculate the similarity” is met where AAPA teaches known similarity determination techniques based on natural language processing may be used (see, e.g., AAPA at pg. 18, which teaches the setting function 144 may set the execution information on the basis of similarity between all of DICOM tags attached to the DICOM image output from the modality 20 and all of DICOM tags defined in the examination end determination rule ERL. For example, in the setting of the execution information, the setting function 144 uses a reference information associated with DICOM tags (a set of DICOM tags) in the examination end determination rule ERL most similar to DICOM tags attached to the DICOM image output from the modality 20. Known similarity determination techniques based on natural language processing or the like may be used .) The Examiner notes that these similarity determination techniques based on natural language processing must have been in existence prior to constructive reduction to practice of Applicant’s claimed invention; and thus, they are AAPA. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical image processing, before the effective filing date, to have modified the analysis support apparatus, system, and method of Nishitaka/Nye to perform known similarity determination techniques based on natural language processing as taught by AAPA, with the motivation of improving medical image (e.g., DICOM) applications (see AAPA, pg. 1 and 18). Subject Matter Free of Prior Art The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the dependent claim 9 as follows: “The medical information processing device according to claim 8, wherein … when processing of the second medical image by the execution application ends before processing of the first medical image can be started, the processing circuitry is configured to set a timing of processing of the second medical image by the execution application to be before processing of the first medical image by the execution application regardless of the priority .” The most remarkable prior art of record is as follows: Nishitaka (US 2022/0139528 A1) for teaching analysis support apparatus, system, and method. Dwivedi (US 2020/0066006 A1) for teaching an image reconstruction process according to claim 6 (para. 0033, 0048), claim 7 (para. 0033, 0053); see also para. 0054-0057. Kuo (US 2017/0046482 A1) for teaching at least the provision of a total estimated time for a medical image series (see para. 0012). Alternative to Dwivedi and/or Kuo, Nye et al. (US 2022/0284579 A1) for teaching according to claims 6-7, a radiologist worklist prioritized by putting stat images first, followed by images in order from oldest to newest… Since so many images are ordered as STAT, a radiologist can be unaware, among all the STAT images, which ones are really the most critical (see para. 0098); elevating priority of an image in the worklist when a critical finding is detected (see para. 0153); rules can be created to determine image/exam priority, and those rules can be stored such as in a DICOM header (e.g., as a tag) of an image sent to the PACS 1044 (para. 0157) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Sughrue et al. (US 2021/0390690 A1) for teaching identifying invalid medical images including the following: a set of possible reasons that an image may be invalid can include one or more of: a header or data from a file of the image cannot be accessed; … ; metadata of the image is invalid; a file of the image does not match a standard schema (para. 0012); and validity criteria for determining an image is invalid… e.g., one or more metadata tags in the uploaded DICOM file is invalid (Table 1 and para. 0081-0082). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica M Webb whose telephone number is (469)295-9173. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:30am-3:30pm CST. 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 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. /J.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3683 /CHRISTOPHER L GILLIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 2 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 3 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 4 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 5 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 6 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 7 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 8 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 9 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 10 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 11 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 13 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 14 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 15 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 16 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 17 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 19 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 20 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 21 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 22 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 23 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 24 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 25 Art Unit: 3683 Application/Control Number: 19/070,593 Page 26 Art Unit: 3683
Prosecution Insights