DETAILED ACTION
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax, Regular postal mail, or EFS Web (PTO/SB/439).
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 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.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11, and 15-21 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, 2, 13, 15 recite “an medical examination task” and does not appear to be grammatical correct, as “an” is normally before a vowel not a consonant. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 3-11, 16-21 are objected for dependency on an objected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11, 13, and 15-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101, set forth in this Office action.
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 1-11, 13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Regarding claim 1, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP §2106.03. The claim recites method steps; thus, the claim is directed to a process which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The limitations “generating a genetic sequence. the genetic sequence comprises a correspondence relation between the medical examination tasks and the medical examining apparatuses processing the examination tasks. and genes in the genetic sequence are the task identifiers of the examination tasks; and
performing iterative updating to the genetic sequence, till an iteration stopping condition is satisfied and according to the genetic sequence that has been updated dispatching the medical examination tasks:
wherein the step of the iterative updating comprises:
determining an apparatus operation duration and a task-switching parameter that correspond to the genetic sequence before the updating, wherein the apparatus operation duration refers to a maximum value of operation durations during which the one or more medical examining apparatuses completely process the plurality of medical examination tasks by using the genetic sequence before the updating the task-switching parameter is for characterizing a duration that is required by a first medical examining apparatus corresponding to the maximum value for switching and processing a first medical examination task. and the first examination task refers to a medical examination task in the genetic sequence before the updating that has a correspondence relation with the first medical examining apparatus;
according to the apparatus operation duration and the task-switching parameter, determining an adaptive value of the genetic sequence before the updating, wherein each of the apparatus operation duration and the task-switching parameter has a relation of negative correlation with the adaptive value; and,”
as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong 2, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
In this case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements
“according to the medical examination tasks and the medical examining apparatus,”
“acquiring by a scanning device, a plurality of medical examination tasks to be dispatched by scanning bar codes, and transmitting the medical examination tasks to a task dispatching apparatus, wherein the medical examination tasks have different task identifiers;
acquiring, by the task dispatching apparatus, one or more medical examining apparatuses configured for processing the plurality of examination tasks”
The elements of listed above relating to “medical examining apparatus” and “scanning device” and “task dispatching apparatus” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component to perform the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The elements listed above relating to “acquiring by a scanning device, a plurality of medical examination tasks to be dispatched by scanning bar codes,
acquiring, by the task dispatching apparatus, one or more medical examining apparatuses configured for processing the plurality of examination tasks” is not a practical application because the elements are regarding data gathering, thus is categorized as insignificant extra solution activity, thus not practical application under prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The “transmitting the medical examination tasks to a task dispatching apparatus, wherein the medical examination tasks have different task identifiers” step only amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of data input and output or applying it. Data input and output is consider well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “medical examining apparatus” and “scanning device” and “task dispatching apparatus” are merely a generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception which cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitations
“acquiring by a scanning device, a plurality of medical examination tasks to be dispatched by scanning bar codes;
acquiring, by the task dispatching apparatus, one or more medical examining apparatuses configured for processing the plurality of examination tasks.”
are regarding data gathering, thus is categorized as insignificant extra solution activity, does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception, because it is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The limitation “transmitting the medical examination tasks to a task dispatching apparatus, wherein the medical examination tasks have different task identifiers” step only amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of data input and output or applying it. Data input and output is consider well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2-12, and 16-21, are dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
They are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because:
Claim 2, further acquires historical operation durations, and predetermined examination types, and sums the durations, and determines a maximum value, these steps are extra solution activity in the form of data gathering.
Claim 3, further determines similarities and averages and calculates, which are additional mental steps that can be done in the mind or on pen and paper.
Claim 4, further acquires and calculates difference between operations. Acquiring step is a form of data gathering and calculating is a mental step that can be done in the mind.
Claim 5, further acquires, a historical operation, summing up examinations, and determines a maximum value, which is no more than extra solution activity. Acquiring step is a form of data gathering and summing, and determining are mental step that can be done in the mind.
Claim 6, further contains calculating steps, and selecting step, which are additional mental steps that can be done in the mind or on pen and paper.
Claim 7, further contains deleting steps, adjusting, updating, step which is no more than extra solution activity manipulation of data.
Claim 8, further contains replicating, and two performing steps, which is equivalent to “apply it.”
Claim 9, further contains allocating step and determining step which are mental step that can be done in the mind.
Claim 10, further contains calculating step, and selecting, and dispatching which is no more than extra solution activity of manipulation of data..
Claim 11, further contains updating step, and calculating, and deleting which is no more than extra solution activity of manipulation of data..
Claim 13, is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. In particular, the claim recites additional elements –a memory storing a computer-readable code—and –one or more processors--. The memory and processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 15, is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. In particular, the claim recites additional elements –computer readable medium--. The medium is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 16, is rejected for the same reasons as claim 11.
Claim 17, is rejected for the same reasons as claim 11.
Claim 18, is rejected for the same reasons as claim 11.
Claim 19, is rejected for the same reasons as claim 11.
Claim 20, is rejected for the same reasons as claim 11.
Claim 21, is rejected for the same reasons as claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 12, 112(f) interpretation, is now moot since claim 12 is cancelled.
Regarding claim 12, 112(2nd) interpretation is now moot since claim 12 is cancelled.
Regarding claim 13 and 15, for 112(d) is now moot in light of the amendments.
Regarding claim 15, USC 101 regarding medium claim being non-statutory is moot in light of the amendment.
Regarding claim 1-11, 13, 15-21, USC 102 abstract idea rejection, applicants argue that claim 1 is not a mental process because it requires physical components working such as a scanning device, scanning barcodes, scheduling apparatus that performs computation computing. Applicant argues the invention is practical because it is rooted in medical application. Applicant argues the invention is significantly more than the abstract idea because it improves medical facility operations.
Examiner disagrees. The claimed limitations recite an abstract idea, because the limitations as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). For example, generating a sequence, performing iterative updating are mental steps. The scanning device, scanning barcodes, and scheduling apparatus are generic computing component and thus is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The technological environment applicant is mentioning is merely insignificant post solution activity and merely linking the abstract idea into a particular technological environment, recited at a high level of generality. Thus, the claims are not patentable under USC 101 abstract idea.
Interview Requests
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.133(a)(3), requests for interview must be made in advance. Interview requests are to be made by telephone (571-270-7848) call or FAX (571-270-8848). Applicants must provide a detailed agenda as to what will be discussed (generic statement such as “discuss §102 rejection” or “discuss rejections of claims 1-3” may be denied interview). The detail agenda along with any proposed amendments is to be written on a PTOL-413A or a custom form and should be faxed (or emailed, subject to MPEP 713.01.I / MPEP 502.03) to the Examiner at least 5 business days prior to the scheduled interview. Interview requests submitted within amendments may be denied because the Examiner was not notified, in advance, of the Applicant Initiated Interview Request and due to time constraints may not be able to review the interview request to prior to the mailing of the next Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Glaser-Seidnitzer et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2007/0211756) teaches configuration of a medical apparatus in the framework of a medical examination, the protocols are decentrally generated at a medical apparatus and are relayed to a central radiology information system. From the central RIS server the modified protocol can be relayed to arbitrary further instances via a network. The method employs a consistency mechanism which ensures that a set of protocols remains consistent and uniform given changes of one protocol.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CARINA YUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9-4 (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 call.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. 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.
Carina Yun
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/CARINA YUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2194
/KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194