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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1 – 15 are pending.
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 – 15 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.
The claims, understood as a whole, recites subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claim 15), machine (claims 1 – 14), and which recite the abstract idea steps of
analyze history information concerning a radiogram interpretation report; and
update rule information for outputting warning information concerning correction of the radiogram interpretation report based on an analysis result of the history information.
These steps of claims 1 – 20, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. The inventions is understood as a whole, in light of the Specification. The Specification brings light into the claimed invention. The Examiner is using the published application because of paragraph numbers.
The Specification includes:
Processing Procedure
Step Sl0l
[0063] The radiogram interpretation doctor prepares a radiogram interpretation report and presses the save button. The analyzing function 201 of the feedback apparatus 2 then starts analyzing history information. That is, the analyzing function 201 analyzes warning history information as history information indicating that warning information was output, warning history information indicating that no warning information was output, and correction history information as history information of correction of the radiogram
interpretation report.
[0076] The feedback apparatus 2 adds rule information to the warning rule DB 507. Since an inappropriate description concerning fail to display warning information can be detected before the addition, it is possible to improve the accuracy of detection of inappropriate descriptions in the radiogram interpretation report preparation support apparatus 5.
[0077] By adding rule information to the warning rule DB 507, the feedback apparatus 2 can reduce the trouble of maintenance of adding rule information, which has been manually performed.
[0078] This will customize the warning rule DB 507 for each hospital or each radiogram interpretation doctor, thereby improving the accuracy of detection of inappropriate descriptions in the radiogram interpretation report preparation support apparatus 5.
It is the Specification that describes the invention as improving the report accuracy and reducing errors. The Specification does not describe the invention as a technical or technological improvement. The Specification describes the invention as applying the abstract idea to technology to achieve all the benefits of applying that technology to the abstract idea.
The result of the invention is improved data. That data may be displayed, it may be stored, or it may designate something. However, that output represents a potential practical application. The invention, as claimed and disclosed, does not have a practical application.
The Examiner is not making any suggestions for overcoming this rejection. The Examiner is not implying that the invention may be overcome. In that line, the disclosure is not about the invention of an X-Ray device or a CT apparatus. These devices are used as general purpose computers that provide particular information and process that information. See Specification paragraph 32 and figure 2.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim 2 – 13, reciting particular aspects of how rule updates may be performed but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of a circuit configured to amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 - 13, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as claims 1 – 20; analyzing and applying rules, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii))
Additional Elements
X-ray CT apparatus comprising a processing circuit – paragraphs 32 and 42, figures 2 and 3.
Network – paragraph 35 “communication network NW” and Gao paragraph 375 internet, the Examiner notes that the Specification does not disclose what “NW” is
Computer including storage – paragraph 33
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 13, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, analyzing data and following rules, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated in in view of Gao et al., U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2023/ 0154593.
As per claim 1,
Gao teaches an X-ray CT apparatus comprising a processing circuit configured to:
analyze history information concerning a radiogram interpretation report (paragraphs 106 and 107, knowledge graph and Abstract- The Specification does not limit what is meant by “history information.” Even “concerning” provides little guidance because the breadth of “concerning” is enormous. Therefore, the Examiner understands this phrase broadly as… information that may, in some unknown way, be related to or contribute to a report. The temporal idea of “history” is equally broad.); and
update rule information (paragraph 366)
for outputting warning information concerning correction of the radiogram interpretation report based on an analysis result of the history information (paragraph 366 - The Examiner notes that “for outputting” is the intended result of the rule. The functional step is “update rule information.” Further, the idea of “correction” is understood to be a change. The “based on” phrase provides no information as to why the change occurs. Lastly, the step is not directed to updating a rule but to updating rule information and the output is not towards a warning but towards warning information. The rule information and the a).
The Examiner adds his comments as a guide to understand claim interpretation. The Specification is written at a high level using functional terms. Any examples provided disclose non-limiting and potential outputs but little guidance upon how those outputs occur.
As per claim 14
Gao teaches a medical information processing system as described above in claim 1.
As per claim 15,
Gao teaches a medical information processing method as described above in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al., U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2023/ 0154593.
As per claims 2 – 13,
Gao does not explicitly teach the claimed information updates. However, the claims require updates that are never performed. Adding or subtracting information has the same result. Therefore, the it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to adjust the information. The process of making data adjustments was known and the results are predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Williams et al Pub. No.: US 2020/0179932 processing and detecting nucleic acids from a set of biological samples
Lyman et al Pub. No.: US 2024/0161035 a medical scan viewing system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Neal R Sereboff whose telephone number is (571)270-1373. The examiner can normally be reached M - T, M - F 8AM - 6PM.
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 at (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.
/NEAL SEREBOFF/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights