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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/16/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
It is appropriate for the Examiner to determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test as recited in the following Steps: 1, 2A, and 2B, see MPEP 2106(III.).
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 1:
First, the Examiner is to establish whether the claim falls within any statutory category including a process, a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, see MPEP 2106.03(II.) and MPEP 2106.03(I).
Claims 15-20 are related to a system, and claims 1-7 are also related to a method (i.e., a process). Claims 8-14 are related to a “non-transitory” storage media storing instructions. Accordingly, these claims are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong One:
Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test demonstrates whether a clam is directed to a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(I.). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, where Prong One establishes the judicial exception. Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, 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. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes, see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(1.) and 2106.04(a)(2).
Representative independent claim 15 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea as underlined in the following limitations. Specifically, independent claim 15 recites:
A system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the processors comprising instructions executable by the processors, the processors being operable when executing the instructions to:
receive, at one or more computing devices, a plurality of medical image records;
receive, at the one or more computing devices, a protocol, the protocol including a plurality of measurements having an order;
identify, at the one or more computing devices, a first digital image of the plurality of digital images, wherein a first measurement of the plurality of measurements can be performed on the first digital image;
display, at the one or more computing devices, the first digital image;
receive, at the one or more computing devices, the first measurement;
identify, at the one or more computing devices, a second digital image of the plurality of digital images, wherein a second measurement of the plurality of measurements can be performed on the second digital image;
display, at the one or more computing devices, the second digital image; and
receive, at the one or more computing devices, the second measurement.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing personal behavior, as the following abstract limitations recite identifying and displaying medical records:
“identify” a first image of the plurality of images, wherein a first measurement of the plurality of measurements can be performed on the first image, which recites an abstract limitation of analysis and selection of the particular first image and where first measurements can be performed on it,
“display” the first image, which recites an abstract limitation of a presentation of the first image,
“receive” the first measurement, which recites an abstract limitation of an interaction to acknowledge the first measurement,
“identify” a second image of the plurality of images, wherein a second measurement of the plurality of measurements can be performed on the second image, which recites an abstract limitation of analysis and selection of the particular second image and where second measurements can be performed on it,
“display” the second image, which recites an abstract limitation of a presentation of the second image,
“receive” the second measurement, which recites an abstract limitation of an interaction to acknowledge the second measurement.
The claim limitations as a whole recite steps for identifying and displaying medical records, which recites steps for managing personal behavior, more specifically for the filtering of particular images records of patients and therefore recite a certain method of organizing human activity, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), more specifically “i. filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
The abstract idea recited in claims 1 and 8 are similar to that of claim 15.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” (i.e., processor) and will be discussed in further detail below.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fails to make the abstract idea any less abstract as noted below:
Claims 2, 9, 16 recite further limitations describing the medical image records that are being identified as comprising DICOM, further describing the abstract idea. Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, 20 recite further abstract limitations describing the identification of the medical records based at least in part on the view associated with the records including a cardiac cycle point, further describing the abstract idea. Claims 7, 14 recite further abstract limitations describing the identifying of the medical image records as being based on image quality, further describing the abstract idea.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrates 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 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 exceptions into a “practical application,” see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(2.) and 2106.04(d)(I.).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea 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 system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the processors comprising instructions executable by the processors, the processors being operable when executing the instructions to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
receive, at one or more computing devices, a plurality of medical image records;
receive, at the one or more computing devices, a protocol, the protocol including a plurality of measurements having an order (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.);
identify, at the one or more computing devices (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), a first digital (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) image of the plurality of digital images, wherein a first measurement of the plurality of measurements can be performed on the first digital image;
display, at the one or more computing devices, the first digital image;
receive, at the one or more computing devices, the first measurement;
identify, at the one or more computing devices, a second digital image of the plurality of digital images, wherein a second measurement of the plurality of measurements can be performed on the second digital image;
display, at the one or more computing devices, the second digital image; and
receive, at the one or more computing devices, the second measurement.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of the overall system comprising one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the processors comprising instructions executable by the processors, the processors being operable when executing the instructions, use of one or more computing devices, and the digitizing of the images, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [19, 21, 22] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the overall generic computing system comprising generic processors and memory. [18] recites the use of the generic computing devices to perform steps of the abstract idea. [30] recites the digitizing of the images to be used in the generic computing environment. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Claims 1 and 8 recite similar additional elements that are analyzed in a similar manner.
Regarding the additional limitations of receive, at one or more computing devices, a plurality of medical image records and receive, at the one or more computing devices, a protocol, the protocol including a plurality of measurements having an order, these are merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data 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)). [18, 22] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the receiving of the medical images to the computing device from a server via a network. [18, 25] recites the receiving of the protocol using the computing device. The use of the network to connect the devices and server is used to perform actions for the system including data gathering for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activities. Claims 1 and 8 recite similar additional elements that are analyzed in a similar manner.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to identify and display medical records, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, see MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set below:
Claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, 19 recite further additional elements describing the measurements of the protocols that are being received as being associated with a cardiac cycle point, further describing the insignificant pre solution activity.
Thus, taken alone and in ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, the independent claims 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 the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(II.). Further, it may need to be established, when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, that the additional elements recite well understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding the additional limitation of the overall system comprising one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the processors comprising instructions executable by the processors, the processors being operable when executing the instructions, use of one or more computing devices, and the digitizing of the images, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”). [19, 21, 22] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the overall generic computing system comprising generic processors and memory. [18] recites the use of the generic computing devices to perform steps of the abstract idea. [30] recites the digitizing of the images to be used in the generic computing environment. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The use of the generic computing devices to receive the data recites well understood, routine and conventional activity. Claims 1 and 8 recite similar additional elements that are analyzed in a similar manner.
Regarding the additional limitations of receive, at one or more computing devices, a plurality of medical image records and receive, at the one or more computing devices, a protocol, the protocol including a plurality of measurements having an order, these are merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data 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 MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”). [18, 22] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the receiving of the medical images to the computing device from a server via a network. [18, 25] recites the receiving of the protocol using the computing device. The use of the network to connect the devices and server is used to perform actions for the system including data gathering for the abstract idea, and thus recites insignificant pre-solution activities and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The connection of the devices and server for receiving the data via a network recites well understood, routine, and conventional activity. Claims 1 and 8 recite similar additional elements that are analyzed in a similar manner.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and therefore claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0185084 A1 to Syeda-Mahmood et al. (“Syeda-Mahmood”):
Regarding claim 1:
Syeda-Mahmood teaches a method of identifying medical image records, comprising: receiving, at one or more computing devices, a plurality of medical image records; ([0063]- The system includes a computing device to take in multiple medical records that are identified and classified by the system automatically.)
receiving, at the one or more computing devices, a protocol, the protocol including a plurality of measurements having an order; ([0038]- In order to classify the echocardiogram images, the system relies on deep learning to gather error measurements that are meant to be used to classify normal/abnormal regions on an image (this is interpreted as establishing a “protocol” for training the model to classify and identify the images based on how abnormal the shapes are). [0039]- Classification of the images is partially done on specific viewpoints of the images, indicating a certain order of views the image to do the image analysis)
identifying, at the one or more computing devices, a first medical image record of the plurality of medical image records, wherein a first measurement of the plurality of measurements can be performed on the first medical image record; ([0049]- Classification of the images is first done on specific viewpoint of the images. Deviation measurements from normal shapes as described in [0038] are then used to further classify (or identify) an image as normal or abnormal (since multiple images can be classified, a first medical image record can be identified as normal, for example).)
displaying, at the one or more computing devices, the first medical image record; receiving, at the one or more computing devices, the first measurement; ([0054]- Once identified, the cognitive system can output all of the medical images (which would include the first image) in a medical image viewer application, which is implemented on the computing device as described in [0061]. [0061]- Since the cognitive system that is used to classify the images is on the computing device, this implies the measurements as described in [0038] are received at the computing device (this would include normal measurements).)
identifying, at the one or more computing devices, a second medical image record of the plurality of medical image records, wherein a second measurement of the plurality of measurements can be performed on the second medical image record; ([0049]- Classification of the images is first done on specific viewpoint of the images. Deviation measurements from normal shapes as described in [0038] are then used to further classify (or identify) an image as normal or abnormal (since multiple images can be classified, a second medical image record could be identified as abnormal, for example).)
displaying, at the one or more computing devices, the second medical image record; and receiving, at the one or more computing devices, the second measurement. ([0054]- Once identified, the cognitive system can output all of the medical images (which would include the second image) in a medical image viewer application, which is implemented on the computing device as described in [0061]. [0061]- Since the cognitive system that is used to classify the images is on the computing device, this implies the measurements as described in [0038] are received at the computing device (this would include abnormal measurements).)
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected in a similar manner to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2:
Syeda-Mahmood teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Syeda-Mahmood further teaches wherein each medical image record of the plurality of medical image records comprises a Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine ("DICOM") Service-Object Pair Instance. ([0039]- The system takes in image records in the DICOM format)
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected in a similar manner to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3:
Syeda-Mahmood teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Syeda-Mahmood further teaches wherein each measurement of the protocol is associated with a view. ([0049]- The medical images are partially classified based on their viewpoint and the abnormal features are measured using a certain view)
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected in a similar manner to claim 3.
Regarding claim 4:
Syeda-Mahmood teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Syeda-Mahmood further teaches wherein identifying the first medical image record is based at least in part on the view associated with the first medical image record; and wherein identifying the second medical image record is based at least in part on the view associated with the second medical image record. ([0040]- The system can identify multiple records. A viewpoint can be classified with the first record, and a second viewpoint could be classified with the second record accordingly.)
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected in a similar manner to claim 4.
Regarding claim 5:
Syeda-Mahmood teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Syeda-Mahmood further teaches wherein each measurement of the protocol is associated with a cardiac cycle point. ([0022]- The views comprise of a cardiac cycle point)
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected in a similar manner to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6:
Syeda-Mahmood teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Syeda-Mahmood further teaches wherein identifying the first medical image record is based at least in part on the cardiac cycle point associated with the first measurement; and wherein identifying the second medical image record is based at least in part on the cardiac cycle point associated with the second measurement. ([0022, 0039]- The cardiac cycle phase can be used to classify the image as well when identifying the medical images (finding an abnormal measurement can be acquired a certain cardiac phase, and finding a normal measurement can be found in another certain cardiac phase, for example).)
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected in a similar manner to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7:
Syeda-Mahmood teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Syeda-Mahmood further teaches wherein identifying the first medical image record is based at least in part on an image quality of the first medical image record; and wherein identifying the second medical image record is based at least in part on an image quality of the second medical image record. ([0047, 0048]- The quality of each of the many images can be identified as well by the system. Quality of the image boundary can be used to determine the boundaries that are necessary to classify normal/abnormal regions. Therefore, identifying the first medical image record is based at least in part on an image quality of the first medical image record (where the image could be classified as normal, for example); and wherein identifying the second medical image record is based at least in part on an image quality of the second medical image record (where the image is classified as abnormal, for example.)
Claim 14 is rejected in a similar manner to claim 7.
The following sources have been considered but have not been used in the above rejections:
WO 2017091835 A2 teaches of sharing medical information via DICOM systems that can identify issues and can analyze medical images based on phases and views
NPL “Automated Characterization of Fatty Liver Disease…” teaches of analyzing medical images and using a classifier to identify the abnormal/normal regions
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS whose telephone number is (571)272-6719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM EST.
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 B 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.
/CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights