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
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action having a notification date of June 4, 2026 (“non-final Office Action”). Following the non-final Office Action, Applicant filed an amendment on September 4, 2026 (the “Amendment”), amending claims 1, 2, 16, and 17.
The present Final Office Action addresses pending claims 1-20 in the Amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §112
These rejections are withdrawn in view of the Amendment.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §101
On pages 11-12 of the Amendment, Applicant takes the position that the present claims are not directly merely to protocol recommendation (which the Examiner indicates defines “mental processes” but instead to operation of a medical imaging system in which protocol recommendation serves as only one component of a larger technological workflow. Applicant notes “As recited in the claims, the processor generates protocol recommendations using a local procedure to protocol mapping based on matched DICOM tags, translates a selected protocol recommendation into a scan session executable, configures imaging hardware using the scan session executable, causes the imaging device to acquire projection data, and generates basis-material medical images from density line-integral projections. Accordingly, the present claims do not merely collect information, analyze information, and display a result. Instead, the claims recite a technological imaging workflow that culminates in machine configuration, physical data acquisition, and image generation. Applicant submits that a human being cannot practically perform the recited operations of configuring the claimed x-ray device, traversing angular positions around a subject to acquire projection data, converting acquired projection data into density line-integral projections, and generating basis-material images in the manner required by the claims.” However, and as noted in the rejection below, the additional limitations of performing the determined medical imaging procedure by translating the at least one of the one or more protocol recommendations into a scan session executable; configuring, using the scan session executable, an x-ray device projected towards a detector array positioned opposite of a gantry; configuring the x-ray device to traverse different angular positions around a subject for acquiring projection data (from claim 1); and generating a medical image of each respective basis material of a subject by converting a set of projection data to a set of density line-integral projections and generating the density map based on the set of density line-integral projections, these additional limitations do no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). A common feature of many field of use limitations is an absence of integration into the claim as a whole and not altering how the process steps of the abstract idea are performed. In the present case, the limitations calling for translating the at least one of the one or more protocol recommendations into a scan session executable; configuring, using the scan session executable, an x-ray device projected towards a detector array positioned opposite of a gantry; and generating a medical image of each respective basis material of a subject by converting a set of projection data to a set of density line-integral projections generating the density map based on the set of density line-integral projections (which are basic, known steps of a CT scan procedure) do not affect how the process steps of generating the one or more protocol recommendations are performed. Furthermore, the present specification even discloses ([0017]) how the disclosed embodiments can be implemented using various imaging modalities in addition to CT such as x-ray, MR, US, etc. which further supports the Examiner's position that the above limitations are just limiting the reach of the imaging protocol recommendation generation steps to a particular technological environment.
Additionally or alternatively, the above limitations just amount to using a computer or other machinery (e.g., CT system) as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (e.g., a method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of cutting the hair with a tool). That is, while the Examiner does not deny that a human cannot practically in their mind perform the above additional limitations, such limitations nevertheless do not provide a “practical application” of the abstract idea for at least the reasons presented herein.
Furthermore, while the newly added limitation reciting “generating a density map based on the set of density line-integral projections” is also not practically performable in the human mind, it nevertheless does not provide a “practical application” of the abstract idea for at least the above-discussed reasons.
On page 13 of the Amendment, Applicant takes the position that the recommendations being translated into scan session executables, used to configure medical imaging hardware, employed to acquire projection data, and further utilized to generate medical images directly influences operation of the imaging system and execution of image acquisition workflows therefore improving the operation of a medical imaging platform driving image acquisition and image reconstruction rather than merely presenting information to a user or simply applying a protocol recommendation within a CT environment.
However, and as repeatedly noted herein, a common feature of many field of use limitations is an absence of integration into the claim as a whole and not altering how the process steps of the abstract idea are performed. MPEP 2106.05(h). In the present case, the limitations calling for translating the at least one of the one or more protocol recommendations into a scan session executable; configuring, using the scan session executable, an x-ray device projected towards a detector array positioned opposite of a gantry; and generating a medical image of each respective basis material of a subject by converting a set of projection data to a set of density line-integral projections generating the density map based on the set of density line-integral projections (which are basic, known steps of a CT scan procedure) do not affect how the process steps of generating the one or more protocol recommendations are performed. Furthermore, the present specification even discloses ([0017]) how the disclosed embodiments can be implemented using various imaging modalities in addition to CT such as x-ray, MR, US, etc. which further supports the Examiner's position that the above limitations are just limiting the reach of the imaging protocol recommendation generation steps to a particular technological environment.
In response to Applicant’s assertion on page 14 of the Amendment that the above limitations limit any danger of the claim monopolizing any judicial exception and that finding otherwise would be contrary to USPTO guidance and the underlying case law and statutes, the Supreme Court in Parker v. Flook specifically found that merely limiting the reach of a claim to a particular technical field would “exalt[] form over substance” as a competent claim drafter could attach similar limitations to almost any [abstract idea]. 437 U.S. 584, 590 (1978). MPEP 2106.05(h). Similarly, the above-noted additional limitations do not provide a “practical application” of the protocol recommendation abstract idea because they merely limit its reach to the field of CT imaging.
Finally, in response to Applicant’s position on pages 14-15 of the Amendment that the present claims satisfy step 2B of the Alice test because they present an ordered combination that produces a concrete imaging outcome constituting a specific technological implementation for controlling a medical imaging system, the Examiner has analyzed the various limitations reciting the abstract idea and the additional limitations both individually and as an ordered combination and nevertheless found the additional limitations to not provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea for at least the reasons presented herein regarding why such limitations do not provide a “practical application” of the abstract idea.
The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In these claims, each of “ID,” “DICOM,” and “MWL” should be spelled out the first time it is used in the claim.
Furthermore, it appears that “the density map” in the last line of claim 16 should be changed to --a density map--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more:
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
As claims 1-20 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), the claims are all within at least one of the four statutory categories. 35 USC §101.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 and July 2024 updates issued by the USPTO as incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 16 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 16 recites:
A medical imaging system, comprising:
an intelligent automated protocoling system configured to map DICOM tags to at least one of a plurality of imaging protocols;
a mapping database comprising the plurality of imaging protocols;
a display device; and
a processor communicably coupled to each of the intelligent automated protocoling system, the mapping database, and the display device, the processor configured with instructions in non-transitory memory that when executed cause the processor to:
receive, from a hospital-specific user interface, a standard procedure ID;
determine a medical imaging procedure based on the standard procedure ID; and
responsive to having previously received the standard procedure ID:
generate one or more protocol recommendations based at least on the determined medical imaging procedure and a local procedure to protocol mapping stored in the non-transitory memory of the intelligent automated protocoling system, wherein the local procedure to protocol mapping maps local imaging procedures to protocol recommendations according to matching DICOM tags; and
perform the determined medical imaging procedure based on at least one of the one or more protocol recommendations, wherein performing the determined medical imaging procedure comprises:
translating the at least one of the one or more protocol recommendations into a scan session executable;
configuring, using the scan session executable, an x-ray device projected towards a detector array positioned opposite of a gantry; and
generating a medical image of each respective basis material of a subject by converting a set of projection data to a set of density line-integral projections and generating the density map based on the set of density line-integral projections.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite "mental processes" because they are observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). As an example, a medical professional could practically in their mind with pen and paper map DICOM tags to imaging protocols; determine a medical imaging procedure based on a standard procedure ID (e.g., a particular type of CT scan); based on previously receiving the standard procedure ID, generate one or more protocol recommendations based on the determined medical imaging procedure and a local procedure-to-protocol mapping that matches DICOM tags associated with a local imaging procedure to the one or more protocol recommendations having matching DICOM tags. For instance, in the case where the determined medical imaging procedure was the same as the local imaging procedure, the medical professional could identify one or more protocol recommendations having DICOM tags the same as those associated with the local imaging procedure in the mapping. These recitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis found to be "mental processes" in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQe2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claims “directed to collection of information, comprehending the meaning of that collected information, and indication of the results, all on a generic computer network operating in its normal, expected manner,” fail step one of the Alice framework. In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Claims directed to “collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data’’ are abstract. Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. General Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Claims directed to organizing, storing, and transmitting information determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Cyberfone Sys., L.L.C. v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F. App’x 988, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 11, 12, and 17-20 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below:
-Claim 11 recites how receiving the standard procedure ID includes determining the standard procedure ID based on an MWL entry which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes") such as with a lookup table or the like.
-Claim 12 recites how generating the one or more protocol recommendations is further based on additional information from the MWL entry which just further defines the "mental processes" discussed previously.
-Claim 17 recites how generating the one or more protocol recommendations includes correlating an MWL entry to a local procedure ID and selecting the at least one of the plurality of imaging protocols based on the local procedure ID which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
-Claim 18 calls for logging an indication that the at least one second imaging protocol is not stored in the mapping database responsive to at least one second imaging protocol from the one or more protocol recommendations not corresponding to any of the plurality of imaging protocols which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
-Claim 19 calls for mapping the one or more DICOM tags to the at least one of the plurality of imaging protocols which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
-Claim 20 calls for selecting the first imaging protocol from the one or more recommendations which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes").
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A medical imaging system, comprising:
an intelligent automated protocoling system configured to (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) map DICOM tags to at least one of a plurality of imaging protocols;
a mapping database comprising the plurality of imaging protocols (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
a display device (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
a processor communicably coupled to each of the intelligent automated protocoling system, the mapping database, and the display device, the processor configured with instructions in non-transitory memory that when executed cause the processor to (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
receive, from a hospital-specific user interface, a standard procedure ID (extra-solution activity (data gathering), see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
determine a medical imaging procedure based on the standard procedure ID; and
responsive to having previously received the standard procedure ID:
generate one or more protocol recommendations based at least on the determined medical imaging procedure and a local procedure to protocol mapping stored in memory of an intelligent automated protocoling system (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), wherein the local procedure to protocol mapping maps local imaging procedures to protocol recommendations according to matching DICOM tags; and
perform the determined medical imaging procedure based on at least one of the one or more protocol recommendations, wherein performing the determined medical imaging procedure comprises:
translating the at least one of the one or more protocol recommendations into a scan session executable;
configuring, using the scan session executable, an x-ray device projected towards a detector array positioned opposite of a gantry; and
generating a medical image of each respective basis material of a subject by converting a set of projection data to a set of density line-integral projections and generating the density map based on the set of density line-integral projections (mere field of use limitation as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the “intelligent automated protocoling system,” mapping database with imaging protocols, display device, processor, memory with instructions, the hospital-specific UI, and the memory of the intelligent automated protocoling system, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of receiving, from a hospital-specific user interface, a standard procedure ID, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the additional limitations of performing the determined medical imaging procedure by translating the at least one of the one or more protocol recommendations into a scan session executable; configuring, using the scan session executable, an x-ray device projected towards a detector array positioned opposite of a gantry; configuring the x-ray device to traverse different angular positions around a subject for acquiring projection data (from claim 1); and generating a medical image of each respective basis material of a subject by converting a set of projection data to a set of density line-integral projections and generating the density map based on the set of density line-integral projections, these additional limitations do no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). A common feature of many field of use limitations is an absence of integration into the claim as a whole and not altering how the process steps of the abstract idea are performed. In the present case, the limitations calling for translating the at least one of the one or more protocol recommendations into a scan session executable; configuring, using the scan session executable, an x-ray device projected towards a detector array positioned opposite of a gantry; and generating a medical image of each respective basis material of a subject by converting a set of projection data to a set of density line-integral projections generating the density map based on the set of density line-integral projections (which are basic, known steps of a CT scan procedure) do not affect how the process steps of generating the one or more protocol recommendations are performed. Furthermore, the present specification even discloses ([0017]) how the disclosed embodiments can be implemented using various imaging modalities in addition to CT such as x-ray, MR, US, etc. which further supports the Examiner's position that the above limitations are just limiting the reach of the imaging protocol recommendation generation steps to a particular technological environment.
Additionally or alternatively, the above limitations just amount to using a computer or other machinery (e.g., CT system) as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (e.g., a method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of cutting the hair with a tool).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 16 and analogous independent claim 1 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, representative independent claim 16 and analogous independent claim 1 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
-Claims 2-10 recite various details regarding use of the CT machine, image reconstruction, etc. (e.g., controlling gantry, details of x-ray source, generating density maps/volume renderings, etc.) which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea or altering how the abstract idea is carried out (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Again, these limitations have nothing to do with and are not integrated into the steps of generating the one or more imaging protocol recommendations.
-Claim 11 calls for receiving, at the hospital-specific UI, an MWL entry which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
-Claim 13 calls for displaying protocol recommendations at a UI which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and receiving the recommendation from the UI which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
-Claim 14 calls for displaying an indication that no protocols were generated at the UI responsive to not previously receiving the standard procedure ID which again amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claim 15 calls for receiving a manual protocol selection from the UI which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and performing the determined medical imaging procedure based on the manual selection which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery (e.g., CT system) as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (e.g., a method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of cutting the hair with a tool).
-Claim 20 calls for receiving the selection of a first imaging protocol from the one or more protocol recommendations including receiving, from the user, confirmation of the automatically selected first imaging protocol which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
When the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 16 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the “intelligent automated protocoling system,” mapping database with imaging protocols, display device, processor, memory with instructions, the hospital-specific UI, and the memory of the intelligent automated protocoling system, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of performing the determined medical imaging procedure by translating the at least one of the one or more protocol recommendations into a scan session executable; configuring, using the scan session executable, an x-ray device projected towards a detector array positioned opposite of a gantry; configuring the x-ray device to traverse different angular positions around a subject for acquiring projection data (from claim 1); and generating a medical image of each respective basis material of a subject by converting a set of projection data to a set of density line-integral projections and generating the density map based on the set of density line-integral projections, these additional limitations do no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). A common feature of many field of use limitations is an absence of integration into the claim as a whole and not altering how the process steps of the abstract idea are performed. In the present case, the limitations calling for translating the at least one of the one or more protocol recommendations into a scan session executable; configuring, using the scan session executable, an x-ray device projected towards a detector array positioned opposite of a gantry; and generating a medical image of each respective basis material of a subject by converting a set of projection data to a set of density line-integral projections (which are basic, known steps of a CT scan procedure) do not affect how the process steps of generating the one or more protocol recommendations are performed. Furthermore, the present specification even discloses ([0017]) how the disclosed embodiments can be implemented using various imaging modalities in addition to CT such as x-ray, MR, US, etc. which further supports the Examiner's position that the above limitations are just limiting the reach of the imaging protocol recommendation generation steps to a particular technological environment.
Additionally or alternatively, the above limitations just amount to using a computer or other machinery (e.g., CT system) as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (e.g., a method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of cutting the hair with a tool).
Regarding the additional limitations directed to receiving, from a hospital-specific user interface, a standard procedure ID, which the Examiner submits merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) as discussed above, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
-Claims 2-10 recite various details regarding use of the CT machine, image reconstruction, etc. (e.g., controlling gantry, details of x-ray source, generating density maps/volume renderings, etc.) which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea or altering how the abstract idea is carried out (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Again, these limitations have nothing to do with and are not integrated into the steps of generating the one or more imaging protocol recommendations.
-Claim 11 calls for receiving, at the hospital-specific UI, an MWL entry which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
-Claim 13 calls for displaying protocol recommendations at a UI which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and receiving the recommendation from the UI which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
-Claim 14 calls for displaying an indication that no protocols were generated at the UI responsive to not previously receiving the standard procedure ID which again amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
-Claim 15 calls for receiving a manual protocol selection from the UI which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and performing the determined medical imaging procedure based on the manual selection which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery (e.g., CT system) as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (e.g., a method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of cutting the hair with a tool). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
-Claim 20 calls for receiving the selection of a first imaging protocol from the one or more protocol recommendations including receiving, from the user, confirmation of the automatically selected first imaging protocol which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
For reference, U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0187934 discloses a medical exam detection module is configured to automatically detect an examination or scan to be performed and which is then used by a presets configuration module to automatically select a presets configuration. For example, in some embodiments, based on the detected examination or scan to be performed, a table within a database is accessed to correlate the detected examination or scan, which may be based on information within one or more received DICOM tags, to one or more preset(s) configuration(s). The acquisition parameters are selected based on the presets without user input and an operator may be enabled to activate one of a number of user-selectable elements to, for example, make adjustments to a displayed image or to select different images (or to perform DICOM Worklist searches or confirm the automatically configured presets).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5.
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, Jason Dunham, can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights