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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/13/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are currently pending in this case and have been examined and addressed below. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the Amendment to the Claims and Remarks filed on 08/13/2025.
Claims 1, 4, 12, and 20 are amended.
Claim 5 remains canceled and not considered at this time.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
communication requests interface configured to intercept, interpreter module configured to apply natural language processing, scheduler module configured to augment, dispatcher module configured to route, in claim 1.
KB configured to store in claim 2.
scheduler module configured to retrieve in claim 3.
AI optimization module configured to monitor in claim 4.
interpreter module configured to assign in claim 6.
AI optimization module configured to determine in claim 10.
scheduler module configured to cluster in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification describes the communication requests interface, interpreter module, scheduler module, dispatcher module, scheduler module, AI optimization module, interpreter module are implemented by the instructions which are stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium and executable by the electronic processor (Specification [0006]). Therefore, the structure for the modules is interpreted to be the instructions stored in the non-transitory computer readable medium.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 2-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per Claim 2, the claim limitations below invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Forecasting KB configured to store in claim 2: The specification does not provide sufficient support for the structure of the forecasting KB. The specification refers to a knowledge base in Paragraph 20, a knowledge base agent in paragraph 35, and a knowledge database in paragraph 36. Additionally, the specification refers to a statistical forecasting knowledge database in Paragraph 39/41. However, none of these have any particular structure associated with them. The knowledge database refers to including data, but this does not specify the particular structure for the knowledge base. Additionally, it is unclear which of these the KB is specifically. There is no “forecasting KB” or forecasting knowledge base for storing forecasting data disclosed in the specification. Therefore, there is no written support provided for the “forecasting KB” and there is no structure provided for this forecasting KB which performs the function of storing data.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
As per Claims 3-4 and 9-10, the claims depend on Claim 2 and do not remedy the indefiniteness issues of Claim 2. As dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend on, they are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 2-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per Claim 2:
Forecasting KB configured to store in claim 2: The specification does not provide sufficient support for the structure of the forecasting KB. The specification refers to a knowledge base in Paragraph 20, a knowledge base agent in paragraph 35, and a knowledge database in paragraph 36. The knowledge database refers to including data, but this does not specify the particular structure for the knowledge base. Additionally, the specification refers to a statistical forecasting knowledge database in Paragraph 39/41. However, none of these have any particular structure associated with them. The knowledge database refers to including data, but this does not specify the particular structure for the knowledge base. Additionally, it is unclear which of these the KB is specifically. There is no “forecasting KB” or forecasting knowledge base for storing forecasting data disclosed in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what the structure for performing the function of storing data.
As per Claims 3-4 and 9-10, the claims depend on Claim 2 and do not remedy the written description requirement issues of Claim 2. As dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend on, they are also rejected.
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 1-4 and 6-21 are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 fall within the statutory category of an apparatus or system. Claims 12-19 fall within the statutory category of an article of manufacture. Claims 20-21 fall within the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A, Prong One
As per Claims 1, 12, and 20, the limitations of intercepting communication requests directed to a radiology department, the communication request being one of a telephone call, an email or a text message addressed to a user of the radiology department, wherein intercepted communication request is prevented from being presented to the user; extracting information from the intercepted communication request and generating a canonical representation from the extracted information; augmenting the canonical representation with context information comprising a current queue length for a radiologist, AI chatbot, forecasting KB or an expected call or wait time; routing the intercepted communication requests to a plurality of available queues that is selected based on the canonical representation and the context information; and monitoring processing of the communication requests (Claim 20), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers activities which manage the workflow of radiology requests. Managing radiology communication requests are functions which are commercial interactions as they are activities carried out in the commercial business activities of a radiologist. These are also personal behaviors and managing interactions between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of commercial interactions such as business relations, managing personal behavior or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements and combination of additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. In particular, Claim 1 recites the additional elements – a radiology reading environment for displaying radiology images and receiving radiology reports; a communication requests interface; an interpreter module, a scheduler module, and a dispatcher module to execute the limitations of the abstract idea. Claim 12 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by an electronic processor. The non-transitory computer readable medium is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The radiology reading environment is described as a PACS application, which are instructions stored in the computer readable medium used to execute the steps of the abstract idea. The communication requests interface is described in the specification as a telephonic interface, text messaging interface, email client, etc. ([0029]), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The interpreter module, scheduler module, and dispatcher module are recited at a high level of generality, such that it also amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. The specification does not provide any description of the modules beyond the functions that are carried out by the modules. Therefore, this is a general purpose computing component which applies the steps of the abstract idea which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, 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 recite the use of a network to transmit communication requests, where the network is recited in a generic manner to communicate data which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. The claims also recite applying natural language processing to the intercepted request, where the natural language processing is claimed at a high-level of generality such that it is a commonplace mathematical algorithm. As per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), the use of a mathematical algorithm applied on a general purpose computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. The claims also recites the additional elements of displaying radiology images and receiving radiology reports which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as in MPEP 2106.05(g), because the steps of displaying radiology images and receiving radiology reports are mere data gathering and outputting in conjunction with the abstract idea where the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Claim 20 also includes an AI-enabled dialog expert system for executing steps of the abstract idea which is recited at a high level of generality, such that it also amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. The specification does not provide any details of the system more than the functions that it carries out and therefore, this is general purpose computing component which applies the steps of the abstract idea. The claims provide a description of the available queues as comprising a radiologist queue, an artificial intelligence chatbot queue, and a knowledge base queue. This is a description and does not provide any functional elements to the claims. Because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with the respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computing device to perform the method of the invention amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. The system including non-transitory computer readable medium, radiology reading environment, communication requests interface, an interpreter module, a scheduler module, and a dispatcher module to execute the limitations of the abstract idea are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as generic computer components. As described above, Claim 20 also recites a AI-enabled dialog expert system which, as described above, is not specified beyond a general purpose computing component and therefore amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. The claims also recite the additional elements of use of a network to transmit communication requests and applying natural language processing to the intercepted request, which are mere instructions to apply the exception as described above. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, transmitting data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The claims also include the additional elements of displaying radiology images and receiving a radiology report which are both elements that are well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions in the field of data management because they are claimed at a high level of generality and include receiving or transmitting data as well as presenting offers and gathering statistics, which have been found to be well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions by the Court (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added) and (iv) Presenting offers and gathering statistics (OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). 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 the computer or improves another technology. The claims do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-4, 6-11, 13-19, and 21 add further limitations which are also directed to an abstract idea. For example, Claim 2 includes storing forecasting data which, as per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), invokes computers as a tool to perform in its ordinary capacity for tasks such as storing data which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. Additionally, storing data in memory is found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Claim 3 includes retrieving and presenting information from the communication requests and database which falls into the grouping of managing personal behaviors and personal interactions and is therefore directed to certain methods of organizing human activity similar to the independent claims. The display device is used to execute the displaying and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. Claim 4 includes monitoring processing of the requests and updating the forecasting data based on the monitoring which is also directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claims. Claim 6 further specifies the step of assigning the extracted information as values of an attribute vector, which merely further specifies the limitation of the independent claim and is directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 7 includes a Picture Archive Communications System (PACS) for implementing the invention and a user interface which are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. The PACS is used for its ordinary purpose of reading radiology images and therefore amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception, as per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Claim 8 includes an automated query queue comprising an expert system for retrieving responses from a database an dan AI-enabled dialog expert system. Similar to the reasoning in the independent claims, the AI-enabled dialog expert system amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. The expert system for retrieving responses is recited at a high level of generality such that it is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Claim 9 includes configuring communication preferences which is managing personal interactions which falls into the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. Claim 10 includes determining a number of available radiologists and a maximum time period a radiologist is available which also falls into the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. Claims 11 and 18 includes clustering trends in data in the communication requests and route the request based on the trend which is certain methods of organizing human activity and uploading the trends to the system which is an additional element that amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception because it involves applying the system/module to routine computer activities such as transmitting and storing data. Claims 13 and 14 include elements of the system which similar to the independent claims are general purpose computing components which amount to mere instructions to apply the exception as they are used to execute the steps of the abstract idea. Claims 15 and 16 include classifying communication requests based on recipient, updating a schedule of requests based on radiologist availability, preferences, or specified radiologist which amounts to the same abstract idea as the independent claims. Claim 17 includes determining a number of available radiologists and determining a maximum time period that a radiologist may be unavailable which amounts to the same abstract idea as the independent claims. Claim 19 includes retrieving information from the requests and database and presenting the information which similar to the independent claims are activities carried out by persons managing the communication requests and is directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 21 includes a Picture Archive Communications System (PACS) for implementing the invention, which is mere instructions to apply the exception for the same reasons as Claim 7. Because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exception and the additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional functionalities in the art, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graves et al. (US 2009/0147940 A1), hereinafter Graves, in view of Jester et al. (US 2017/0364643 A1), hereinafter Jester, in view of Zuckerman et al. (US 2018/0082573 A1), hereinafter Zuckerman, in view of Revanur et al. (US 2020/0137231 A1), hereinafter Revanur, in view of Backhaus et al. (US 2011/0066449 A1), hereinafter Backhaus.
As per Claims 1, 12, and 20, Graves discloses a radiology request processing system, comprising:
a radiology reading environment via which radiology images are displayed and via which a radiology report is received (see Fig. 2, radiology system; [0058] radiology system including diagnostic terminal and archiving/accessing radiology data, i.e. images);
a communication requests interface configured to intercept communication requests directed over a network to a user of a reading environment ([0008] receive a communication request for a recipient using a communication request receiving entity, see also [0069], [0188] recipient may be an individual person/machine, [0059-0062] communication system provide capabilities over networks such as voice networks, data networks, etc.), the communication request being any one of a telephone call, an email, or a text message ([0069] communication request can be in a variety of formats including email message, text message, or call attempt), wherein the communication requests interface is configured to prevent the communication request from being presented to the user ([0191] delivery of the communication request is based on the delivery feature for the recipient which can be set to “delayed” to indicate the communication request is not to be displayed to the recipient but held for a determined amount of time);
an interpreter module configured to extract information comprising one or more of request attributes or complexity ([0114] determine an interrupt worthiness, i.e. classify, the communication request; [0146-0151] evaluator analyzes request information to determine set of interrupt worthiness parameters to be used to determine the importance/urgency of the communication request, where the importance/urgency is the classification);
the request directed to a recipient that is a radiologist or artificial intelligence chatbot or forecasting KB ([0069] communication request destined for a recipient which can be a human or a robot or database, [0058] system is a radiology system and the humans involved in receiving data are radiologists); and
a dispatcher module configured to route the intercepted communication requests to a queue ([0193-0194] selection process uses selection criteria to determine recipient and cause delivery of modified communication request to final recipient via the communication request delivering entity).
(Claim 20) an AI optimization module to monitor processing of the communication requests by an AI-enabled dialog expert system (Abstract/[0010] monitoring workflows by determining an interruption by a communication request and resumption activity of a workflow; [0111] communication request management service to control timing, delivery of communications to manage the interruptions).
However, Graves may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Jester: the tasks/requests are related to a user of the radiology reading environment ([0050] system includes RIS, interface unit, and workstation, [0051] RIS stores information for the radiologist including messages, [0103] radiologist access workflow via a user interface at a workstation);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the known concept of a user in a radiology reading environment from Jester with the known system of receiving, classifying, and assigning communication requests to users in a healthcare setting from Graves in order to optimize task distribution and balance the load of a plurality of radiologists while prioritizing the tasks (Jester [0095]).
However, Graves and Jester may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Zuckerman: a scheduler module configured to augment the canonical representation with context information comprising one or more of a current queue length for a human care provider, a current queue length for an artificial intelligence chatbot, a current queue length for a forecasting knowledge base, an expected call time, or an expected wait time ([0023] application selects appropriate staff member to allocate task to based on staff member availability, Examiner interprets a person being available to read on expected wait time as available indicates no wait, [0062]/[0065] patient request is assessed for patient needs which is displayed as canonical representation of information including timestamp of call request, specific staff member, patient information, etc. the patient needs and appropriate staff based on availability to begin task (wait time) are used to assign a task using real time assignment tools).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the present invention to combine the known concept of routing a request to a recipient queue based on context information and wait time from Zuckerman with the known system of receiving, classifying, and assigning communication requests to users in a healthcare setting from Graves and Jester in order to achieve clinical workflow optimization and assume full accountability for satisfaction and outcomes (Zuckerman [0017]).
However, Graves, Jester, and Zuckerman may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Revanur: apply natural language processing to the intercepted communication request to extract information comprising one or more of caller attributes, request attributes, timestamp, subject patient, intended recipient, or complexity, wherein the interpreter module generates a canonical representation from the extracted information ([0022] use of natural language processing to process customer communication and give a category to extracted data, i.e. a canonical representation, where the factors analyzed includes customer’s manner of speech, tone, word choice which Examiner interprets as caller attributes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the present invention to combine the known concept of generating a standard representation of the request using natural language processing from Revanur with the known system of receiving, classifying, and assigning communication requests to users in a healthcare setting from Graves, Jester, and Zuckerman in order to route requests to an agent who is best suited to handle the request (Revanur [0002]).
However, Graves, Jester, Zuckerman, and Revanur may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Backhaus: route the communication request to a plurality of available queues that is selected based on the canonical representation and the context information ([0090-0091] the workflow module may assign more than one doctor to a medical request, the request can be assigned to doctor #1 and doctor #2, [0007] the system follows a workflow which assigns requests to resources, [0033] the assignments are made based on variables such as doctor’s schedule/online status (context) and request for certain doctor, complexity of request (canonical) Examiner notes that the claim language recites route to a plurality of queues which can be a plurality of radiologist queues, although the claim specifies the plurality of queues comprising radiologist, artificial intelligence chatbot, and knowledge base queues, the claim only requires more than one of any of these types of queues are selected for routing the request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the present invention to combine the known concept of routing the request to more than one resource selected from a group of available resources from Backhaus with the known system of receiving, classifying, and assigning communication requests to users in a healthcare setting from Graves, Jester, Zuckerman, and Revanur in order to optimize the availability of resources and decrease the chances that a request will remain incomplete for an unacceptable period of time (Backhaus [0023, 0090]).
As per Claim 2, Graves, Jester, Zuckerman, Revanur, and Backhaus discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Jester also teaches the knowledge base is configured to store the forecasting data including one or more of: current queue lengths for the queues of the plurality of queues, expected wait times for the queues of the plurality of queues, and historical wait times for the queues of the plurality of queues ([0117] queue length rules are used to determine distribution, where the current queue length of a radiologist must meet the queue length rules, [0119] distribution rules are stored in a database; [0126] determine queue length of radiologist at current time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the known concept of using current queue lengths of radiologists to route tasks from Jester with the known system of receiving, classifying, and assigning communication requests to users in a healthcare setting from Graves in order to optimize task distribution and balance the load of a plurality of radiologists while prioritizing the tasks (Jester [0095]).
As per Claims 3 and 19, Graves, Jester, Zuckerman, Revanur and Backhaus discloses the limitations of Claims 2 and 12. Graves also teaches the scheduler module is configured to retrieve information from the communication requests ([0114] communication requests include intended recipient, sender, message are retrieved by the evaluator, [0116] intrinsic information is that which is retrieved from the communication request) and information from the database related to the communication requests ([0125] extrinsic information is retrieved from HIS/HCIS including location of recipient/schedule or skill set of recipient, [0030-0031] HIS and HCIS are knowledge databases).
However, Graves may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Jester: present the retrieved information and the communication requests on a display device ([0052] PACS includes a display device/viewing workstation, [0100] distributor displays the tasks assigned for the user via a user interface/display, [0113] display enables distributor to provide tasks to radiologist).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the known concept of a display device for presenting tasks to a user from Jester with the known system of receiving, classifying, and assigning communication requests to users in a healthcare setting from Graves in order to optimize task distribution and balance the load of a plurality of radiologists while prioritizing the tasks (Jester [0095]).
As per Claim 4, Graves, Jester, Zuckerman, Revanur and Backhaus discloses the limitations of Claim 2. Jester also teaches monitor processing of the communication requests by request resolution agents (see claim 8/[0033] monitoring a first work queue for the first radiologist to determine when available) and to update the forecasting data of the knowledge base on the basis of the monitored processing of the communication requests by the request resolution agents ([0087] changes made to the allocation to respond to user feedback or to meet load-balancing rules, [0117] queue length rules are used to determine distribution, where the current queue length of a radiologist must meet the queue length rules, [0119] distribution rules are stored in a database; [0126] determine queue length of radiologist at current time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the known concept of updating the forecast data based on the monitored requests and agents to route tasks from Jester with the known system of receiving, classifying, and assigning communication requests to users in a healthcare setting from Graves in order to optimize task distribution and balance the load of a plurality of radiologists while prioritizing the tasks (Jester [0095]).
As per Claim 6, Graves, Jester, Zuckerman, Revanur and Backhaus discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Graves also teaches assign extracted information as values of an attribute vector ([0115] interrupt worthiness is represented by a set of parameters, i.e. an attribute vector, [0116-0123] the parameters have values which are information taken from the communication request, i.e. extracted, including sender identity/recipient identity, etc.);
wherein the values of the attribute vector correspond to one or more of: one or more caller attributes describing the caller ([0117] parameter includes identity of sender); one or more request type attributes describing the type of request including a request attribute pertaining to a current examination, and a previously prepared radiology report; a timestamp attribute storing a time when the communication request was intercepted; a patient attribute identifying a patient to which the communication request pertains; at least one request content attribute indicating one or more of anatomy, imaging modality, or reason for exam content of the communication request; an interruption complexity attribute whose value is determined based at least on a number of questions being asked in the communication request.
However, Graves may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Jester: the task classification is assigned a value for an attribute ([0031] each medical exam/task has a determined relative value unit to indicate how difficult the task is to complete, see also [0040], [0076] relative value unit score classifies difficulty of task and used by distributor to assign task).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the known concept of classifying tasks with values for attributes of the task from Jester with the known system of receiving, classifying, and assigning communication requests to users in a healthcare setting from Graves in order to optimize task distribution and balance the load of a plurality of radiologists while prioritizing the tasks (Jester [0095]).
As per Claim 7, Graves, Jester, Zuckerman, Revanur and Backhaus discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Graves also teaches the radiology reading environment is implemented on a Picture Archive Communication System (PACS) ([0058] the radiology system comprises a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) for accessing information in the radiology database) and
the plurality of agent queues includes at least one user interface queue whose corresponding request resolution agent comprises a user interface, the at least one user interface queue including one or more of: a telephonic user interface with the user of the radiology reading environment; and a text messaging user interface with the user of the radiology reading environment ([0190] delivery is via format of the modified communication request which includes text message or call attempt, i.e. telephonic interface).
However, Graves may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Jester: the user interface queue whose corresponding agent comprises a user interface with the user of the radiology reading environment ([0050] system includes RIS, interface unit, and workstation, [0051] RIS stores information for the radiologist including messages, [0103] radiologist access workflow via a user interface at a workstation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the known concept of a user in a radiology reading environment from Jester with the known system of receiving, classifying, and assigning communication requests to users in a healthcare setting from Graves in order to optimize task distribution and balance the load of a plurality of radiologists while prioritizing the tasks (Jester [0095]).
As per Claim 9, Graves, Jester, Zuckerman, Revanur and Backhaus discloses the limitations of Claim 4. Jester also teaches the radiology reading environment provides a communication configuration user interface via which the user of the radiology reading environment configures communication preferences ([0067] radiologist preferences are created via user interface of the radiology workstation, see Fig. 2) relating to a maximum number of communication requests allowed per unit time ([0027] radiologist attributes include queue length which defines the number of jobs in radiologists workflow allowed at one time), and prioritization of communication requests on the basis of request content including one or more of type of modality and type of anatomy ([0026] radiologist profile used to assign work includes preferred modality, body part).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the known concept of a user in a radiology reading environment entering preferences from Jester with the known system of receiving, classifying, and assigning communication requests to users in a healthcare setting from Graves in order to optimize task distribution and balance the load of a plurality of radiologists while prioritizing the tasks (Jester [0095]).
As per Claim 10, Graves, Jester, Zuckerman, Revanur and Backhaus discloses the limitations of Claim 9. Graves also teaches determine a number of available radiologists based on an availability of a radiologist, preferences of a radiologist, or if the at least one communication request specifies a specific radiologist ([0189] the communication request specifies the intended recipient and only the intended recipient to answer the communication request then the decision making engine only sends to one possible recipient);
determine a maximum time period that a radiologist may be unavailable based on availability of other radiologists and a number of communication requests ([0030] load balancing rules ensure service level agreements are reached which indicate length of time for a workflow task to be completed, i.e. max time for job to wait, which examiner interprets to be the max time period that a radiologist can be unavailable; [0040] service level agreement includes time to perform exam and system also considers relative value unit score which determines other possible appropriate radiologists, i.e. availability of other radiologists).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the known concept of determining time period radiologist cannot work on a task from Jester with the known system of receiving, classifying, and assigning communication requests to users in a healthcare setting from Graves in order to optimize task distribution and balance the load of a plurality of radiologists while prioritizing the tasks (Jester [0095]).
As per Claim 13, Graves, Jester, Zuckerman, Revanur and Backhaus discloses the limitations of Claim 12. Graves also teaches a user interface comprises at least one of a telephonic interface and a text messaging interface ([0190] delivery feature of the request is in a format including text message, call attempt, etc.).
Jester also teaches the stored instructions are further executable by the at least one electronic processor to implement ([0065]), on one or more radiology workstations, a radiology reading environment via which radiology images are displayed on the radiology workstation and via which a radiology report is received via the radiology workstation ([0050] system includes RIS, interface unit, and workstation, [0051] RIS stores information for the radiologist including messages, [0056] workstation is equipment capable of viewing medical images, [0103] radiologist access workflow via a user interface at a workstation); and
the plurality of queues include at least one radiology workstation call queue whose corresponding request resolution agent comprises a user interface to a radiology workstation of the one or more radiology workstations ([0048] first and second radiologist queues of work to be done by each agent/radiologist, [0103] radiologist access workflow via a user interface at a workstation);
wherein the user interface to the workstation comprises at least one of a telephonic interface and a text messaging interface ([0135] processor platform can be a mobile device such as a cell phone, smart phone, tablet, iPad, Examiner interprets these devices to have an interface which can communication telephone calls and text messages).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the known concept of providing a plurality of radiology workstations with user interface from