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 .
Status of Claims
In the response filed on 2026 January 09, the following changes have been made: claims 21, 24, 30, 32, 36, and 40.
Claims 21-40 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice to Applicant
In light of the originally filed claims and the specification, examiner has interpreted “remote resources” to mean “medical imaging experts” and “site of the imaging device/imaging examination” to mean “local medical imaging device operator.” Applicant’s specification does not disclose “remote resources” and “site of the imaging device.”
Claim Objection
Claim 40 is objected to because it recites the limitation "the imaging devices” since it has not been previously introduced in the claim. Examiner presumes applicant meant “the imaging device” to remain consistent with the rest of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 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.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a article of manufacture (claims 21-35), machine (claims 36-39), and process (claim 40).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites steps of
A non-transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions
executable by at least one electronic processor when, when executed by the at least one electronic processor cause the at least one electronic processor to:
determine characteristics of an imaging examination performed by one or more imaging devices by applying a model to predict characteristics relevant to the imaging examination;
determine, based on the determined characteristics of the imaging examination, characteristics of available remote resources to assist in performance of the imaging examination;
match at least one available remote resource based on the determined characteristics of the available remote resources and the determined characteristics of the imaging examination by the one or more imaging devices;
provide a user interface to a display device to enable selection of an available remote resource among a list of the at least one matched available remote resources;
establish a communications link between a site of the imaging device and the at least one matched available remote resource; and
enable one or more of: communication, screen sharing, a video feed from a video camera of the imaging device, or control between the site of the imaging device and the at least one matched available remote resource.
Claim 36 recites steps of
a screen-sharing device for sharing a control screen of the imaging device;
an electronic processor operatively connected with an electronic network, the electronic network configured to provide the communication link with a remote resource of a set of remote resources;
a database storing characteristics of the set of remote resources, the characteristics including at least one of: experience with a modality of the imaging examination; experience with an anatomy of a patient to be imaged during the imaging examination; experience working with the imaging examination; and experience with a type of problem occurring in the imaging examination; and
an electronic processor programmed to:
determine characteristics of the imaging examination by applying a
model to predict characteristics relevant to the imaging examination;
retrieve, from the database, characteristics for at least one available
remote resources of the set of remote resources that are available to assist in the
imaging examination by the one or more imaging devices;
rank the at least one available remote resources based on matching the
characteristics of the at least one available remote resources with characteristics of the imaging examination; and
provide a user interface (UI) to at least one display device displaying a
list of the ranked at least one available remote resources, enabling selection of one of the at least one available remote resources, accept a selection of one of the at least one available remote resources;
and
establish the communication link between a site of the imaging device and the selected matched available remote resource to establish an assistance session over the communication link to connect the site of the imaging device and the selected matched available remote resource.
Claim 40 recites steps of
determining characteristics of a imaging examination by applying a model to predict characteristics relevant to the imaging examination;
retrieving, from a database, characteristics for at least one remote resources available to assist the imaging examination by the imaging devices;
ranking the available at least one remote resources based on a score indicative of the characteristics of the at least one available remote resources with the characteristics of the imaging examination;
providing a user interface (UI) to a display device to display a list of the ranked at least one available remote resources;
receiving a input, via an input device, indicative of a selection of an available remote resource from the at least one available remote resources;
establishing a communications link between a site of the imaging device and the selected matched available remote resource;
collecting data related to an effectiveness of assistance provided by the selected matched available remote resource and the imaging examination;
determining one or more quality metrics related to the collected data; and
updating the characteristics for the at least one remote resources stored in the database for the selected matched available remote resource with the determined one or more quality metrics.
These steps for healthcare collaboration with remote resources (i.e., a remote medical imaging expert), as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the italicized portions from managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people through managing the interactions between the site of the imaging device/imaging examination (i.e., local medical image device operator) and the remote resources (i.e., remote medical imaging expert). This could be analogized to considering historical usage information while inputting data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements, non-italicized portions identified above for claims 21, 36, and 40 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
[Claim 21] A non-transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions executable by at least one electronic processor when, when executed by the at least one electronic processor cause the at least one electronic processor; by one or more imaging devices by applying a model; provide a user interface to a display device to enable selection of an available remote resource among a list of the at least one matched available remote resources; establish a communications link between a site of the imaging device and the at least one matched available remote resource; and, enable one or more of: communication, screen sharing, a video feed from a video camera of the imaging device, or control between the site of the imaging device and the at least one matched available remote resource
[Claim 36] a screen-sharing device for sharing a control screen of the imaging device; an electronic processor operatively connected with an electronic network, the electronic network configured to provide the communication link with a remote resource of a set of remote resources; an electronic processor programmed; by applying a model; by the one or more imaging devices; provide a user interface (UI) to at least one display device displaying a list of the ranked at least one available remote resources, enabling selection of one of the at least one available remote resources, accept a selection of one of the at least one available remote resources; and, establish the communication link between a site of the imaging device and the selected matched available remote resource to establish an assistance session over the communication link to connect the site of the imaging device and the selected matched available remote resource
[Claim 40] by applying a model; by the imaging devices; providing a user interface (UI) to a display device to display a list of the ranked at least one available remote resources; via an input device; and, establishing a communications link between a site of the imaging device and the selected matched available remote resource;
amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of
[Claim 36] a database storing characteristics of the set of remote resources; and, retrieve, from the database, characteristics for at least one available remote resources of the set of remote resources that are available to assist in the imaging examination;
[Claim 40] retrieving, from a database, characteristics for at least one remote resources available to assist the imaging examination; receiving a input, […], indicative of a selection of an available remote resource from the at least one available remote resources; and, collecting data related to an effectiveness of assistance provided by the selected matched available remote resource and the imaging examination;
amounts to mere data gathering and storage since it does not add meaningful limitations to the process of retrieving, receiving, collecting, and storing performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Each of the above additional element(s) therefore only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computer components or other machines within their ordinary capacity, and also add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the above claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) 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 and add insignificant extra-solution activity. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception in particular fields such as
[Claim 21] A non-transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions executable by at least one electronic processor when, when executed by the at least one electronic processor cause the at least one electronic processor; by one or more imaging devices by applying a model; provide a user interface to a display device to enable selection of an available remote resource among a list of the at least one matched available remote resources; establish a communications link between a site of the imaging device and the at least one matched available remote resource; and, enable one or more of: communication, screen sharing, a video feed from a video camera of the imaging device, or control between the site of the imaging device and the at least one matched available remote resource;
[Claim 36] a screen-sharing device for sharing a control screen of the imaging device; an electronic processor operatively connected with an electronic network, the electronic network configured to provide the communication link with a remote resource of a set of remote resources; an electronic processor programmed; by applying a model; by the one or more imaging devices; provide a user interface (UI) to at least one display device displaying a list of the ranked at least one available remote resources, enabling selection of one of the at least one available remote resources, accept a selection of one of the at least one available remote resources; and, establish the communication link between a site of the imaging device and the selected matched available remote resource to establish an assistance session over the communication link to connect the site of the imaging device and the selected matched available remote resource;
[Claim 40] by applying a model; by the imaging devices; providing a user interface (UI) to a display device to display a list of the ranked at least one available remote resources; via an input device; and, establishing a communications link between a site of the imaging device and the selected matched available remote resource,
e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f); and, e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f).
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as recitation of
[Claim 36] retrieve, from the database, characteristics for at least one available remote resources of the set of remote resources that are available to assist in the imaging examination, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv); and, a database storing characteristics of the set of remote resources, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i);
[Claim 40] retrieving, from a database, characteristics for at least one remote resources available to assist the imaging examination; receiving a input, […], indicative of a selection of an available remote resource from the at least one available remote resources; and, collecting data related to an effectiveness of assistance provided by the selected matched available remote resource and the imaging examination,
e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i);
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.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 22-35 and 37-39 particular aspects for healthcare collaboration with a remote medical imaging expert such as
[Claim 22] rank the at least one matched available remote resource based on calculated compound scores of the characteristics of the at least one matched available remote resource and the characteristics of the imaging examination;
[Claim 23] providing the list as a ranked list of the at least one matched available remote resources according to the calculated compounded scores;
[Claim 24] establishing a communication link with a highest ranked remote resource of the at least one matched available remote resources;
[Claim 25] listing the scores of the at least one matched available remote resources on the user interface;
[Claim 26] wherein the determining of the characteristics for available remote resources includes determining a scheduling availability of the remote resources; and the providing of the user interface displaying the list includes providing the list with the scheduling availability of the at least one matched available remote resources;
[Claim 27 & 38] applying a machine learning (ML) algorithm to the characteristics of the available remote resources to rank the at least one matched available remote resources;
[Claim 28] performing a feature selection process on the characteristics of the available remote resources and the characteristics of the imaging examination;
[Claim 29] wherein the feature selection process is established via a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) process;
[Claim 30] wherein the characteristics of the available remote resources include at least one of:
experience with an imaging modality of the imaging examination;
experience with an anatomy of a patient to be imaged during the imaging examination;
and
experience with a type of problem occurring in the imaging examination;
[Claim 31 & 39] upon receiving a selection of a selected matched available remote resource from among the at least one matched available remote resource from a user device, providing a menu displaying information about the selected matched available remote resource;
[Claim 32] upon receiving a selection of one of the at least one matched available remote resource from a user device, establishing a two-way telephonic or video communication link between the selected matched available remote resource and the site of the imaging device and sharing a display of the imaging device at a workstation of the selected matched available remote resource;
[Claim 33] upon receiving an indication from the selected matched available remote resource of a decline of the communication link, establishing a communication link between another one of the at least one matched available remote resources;
[Claim 34] wherein the characteristics of the remote resources are stored in a database, and the instructions further cause the at least one electronic processor to:
obtain data related to an effectiveness of assistance provided by the selected matched available remote resource;
calculate one or more quality metrics related to the obtained data; and
update the characteristics of the remote resources stored in the database for the selected matched available remote resource with the calculated one or more quality metrics;
[Claim 35]
collect data related to an effectiveness of assistance provided by the selected matched available remote resource;
perform an adaptive-learning process on the collected data to maximize quality metrics related to the effectiveness of the assistance; and
update the characteristics of the remote resources stored in the database for the selected matched available remote resource with the maximized quality metrics;
[Claim 37] upon receiving input via an input device indicative of a selection of one of the listed ranked at least one available remote resources, establishing a communication link between the selected listed ranked available remote resource and the imaging examination;
these italicized portions are methods of organizing human activity since they merely describe types of data and determinations that can be performed by humans. The italicized portions containing the recitation of performing a feature selection process and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) process at a high level of generality have been treated as part of the abstract idea, specifically as mathematical calculations which falls within the abstract idea of mathematical concepts.
Step 2A Prong 2
Dependent claims 24-27, 31-35, and 37-39 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (the additional limitations in claim 24 (establishing a communication link); claim 25 (on the user interface); claim 26 (the providing of the user interface displaying the list includes providing the list with the scheduling availability of the at least one matched available remote resources; claims 27 & 38 (applying a machine learning (ML) algorithm to the characteristics of the available remote resources to rank the at least one matched available remote resources); claim 31 & 39 (from a user device, providing a menu displaying information about the selected matched available remote resource); claim 32 (establishing a two-way telephonic or video communication link between the selected matched available remote resource and the site of the imaging device and sharing a display of the imaging device at a workstation of the selected matched available remote resource); claim 33 (establishing a communication link between another one of the at least one matched available remote resources); and, claim 37 (via at least one user input device; establishing a communication link between the selected listed ranked available remote resource and the imaging examination) amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea such as claim 34 (wherein the characteristics of the remote resources are stored in a database, and the instructions further cause the at least one electronic processor to: obtain data related to an effectiveness of assistance provided by the selected matched available remote resource); claim 15 (collect data related to an effectiveness of assistance provided by the selected matched available remote resource) amounts to mere data gathering and storage since it does not add meaningful limitations to the obtaining, collecting, and storing performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Dependent claims 24-27, 31-33, and 37-39 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, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, see [0033] which provides an example of an off-the-shelf input devices and [0035] which provides examples of off-the-shelf memory components. Dependent claims 14-15 amounts to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); claim 34 amounts to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). There is no indication that these additional elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, in consideration of all the facts, it is
evident that the present invention is not a patent-eligible invention under USC 101.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 21-26, 28, 30, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam et al. (US20150347693A1) in view of Amble et al. (US20150035959A1).
Regarding claim 21, Lam discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions executable by at least one electronic processor when, when executed by the at least one electronic
processor cause the at least one electronic processor ([0033] “the computer program product comprising a computer readable memory storing computer executable instructions thereon that when executed by a processing unit perform the steps”)
determine characteristics of an imaging examination performed by one or more imaging devices by applying a model to predict characteristics relevant to the imaging examination ([0142] “The ERT models are built from data mining and analysis on historical data of previous analysis of radiology orders by the readers.” [0137] “The order expected reading time is then dependent on at least one parameter such as the modality, the information contained in the study description, the image body part, any contrast agent used for imaging the body part, the patient age, the number of medical images associated with the radiology order […] The order expected reading time may then be determined from a database containing reference reading times for respective parameter values.”)
determine, based on the determined characteristics of the imaging examination, characteristics of available remote resources to assist in performance of the imaging examination by the one or more medical imaging devices ([0126] “it is determined which qualified readers are available for analyzing the radiology order” [0141] “In the same or another embodiment, the order expected reading time depends on at least one of the following parameters: the order relative value units (RVUs) value, the order subspecialty(ies), the reader experience in years, the reader subspecialty(ies), a measure of the reader subspecialties match with the order subspecialties, and/or the like.” [0149] “Once the expected reading time for the radiology order has been determined for each reader, the readers who may analyze the radiology order by its due-in-time requirement are identified at step 106.”)
match at least one available remote resource based on the determined characteristics of the available remote resources and the determined characteristics of the imaging examination ([0097] “At step 16, the qualification subspecialty(ies) of each reader is(are) retrieved from the database and compared to the radiology subspecialty(ies) of the radiology order in order to determine positive matches between the qualification subspecialty(ies) of the readers and the subspecialty(ies) of the radiology order. A positive match occurs when one qualification subspecialty of a reader corresponds to one radiology subspecialty of the radiology order.”)
provide a user interface to a display device to enable selection of an available remote resource among a list of the at least one matched available remote resources ([0179] “Referring back to FIG. 5, once the adequate readers have been ranked, the ordered list of adequate readers is outputted at step 110. For example, the list may be stored in memory or transmitted to a display unit to be displayed thereon.” [0177] “The readers may be ranked as a function of the increasing total expected reading time. In this case, the reader having the lowest total expected reading time is ranked first, and is selected as being the most adequate reader for analyzing the new order.”)
Lam does not disclose however Amble teaches establish a communications link between a site of the imaging device and the at least one matched available remote resource ([0034] “The telemedicine workstations 104, 108, 110 are connected to one another through one or more networks 112 and may optionally also be connected to a cloud based architecture 114.” [0033] “For convenience, the first telemedicine workstation 104 is sometimes referred to herein as the “patient” or “local” telemedicine workstation since it is preferably positioned at the location of a patient and is used by a technician or practitioner that is interacting with the patient. The second telemedicine workstation 108 is sometimes referred to herein as the “remote” or “specialist” telemedicine workstation since it is typically positioned at a location that is apart from the patient and is most often used by a medical practitioner (such as a specialist, the ordering doctor, etc.) that is participating in the telemedicine session.”)
enable one or more of: communication, screen sharing, a video feed from a video camera of the imaging device, or control between the site of the imaging device and the at least one matched available remote resource ([0036] “Generally, the patient telemedicine workstation 104 is situated near a patient who is currently undergoing the diagnostic testing, although this is not a requirement. The patient telemedicine workstation 104 encodes the data streams from the diagnostic testing and transmits them to other participating telemedicine devices (e.g., remote telemedicine workstation 108). As a result, users of those remote telemedicine devices are able to view and participate in the diagnostic test in (near) real time. That is, the media received at the remote telemedicine devices is generally rendered live, although there may be some small delay due to the inherent latencies caused by network conditions and overhead. The telemedicine workstation also allows a medical professional at the site of the diagnostic test to communicate with professionals who are participating in the telemedicine session remotely.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Lam establishing a communications link and enabling at least one type of communication during an imaging examination as taught by Amble since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 22, Lam discloses rank the at least one matched available remote resource based on calculated compound scores of the characteristics of the at least one matched available remote resource and the characteristics of the imaging examination ([0018] “In one embodiment, the method further comprises the use of the at least one processing unit for assigning at least one of a respective rank and a respective score to each one of the adequate readers using an optimization criteria based on the at least one possible schedule for each reader.” [0105] “Referring to the above example, the pediatric radiology may be considered as more important than the neuroradiology subspecialty, and therefore ranked first while the neuroradiology subspecialty may be ranked second.”)
Regarding claim 23, Lam discloses providing the list as a ranked list of the at least one matched available remote resources according to the calculated compounded scores ([0174] “In another example, the list may be sent to a display unit to be displayed thereon.” [0044] “In one embodiment, the system further comprises a ranking unit for assigning at least one of a respective rank and a respective score to each one of the adequate readers, thereby obtaining an ordered list of adequate readers, and outputting the ordered list of adequate readers.”)
Regarding claim 24, Lam discloses […] with a highest ranked remote resource of the at least one matched available remote resources ([0111] “It should be understood that assigning a score to each reader as a function of their subspecialty is equivalent to ranking the readers.” [0220] “Each criterion is used as a partitioning rule such that the most important criterion partitions the readers into ranked subsets, for example, by setting preference score thresholds. […] The readers who fall within the highest ranked partition subset are considered the best suited for reading the new order.”)
Lam does not disclose however Amble teaches establishing a communication link […] The telemedicine workstation also allows a medical professional at the site of the diagnostic test to communicate with professionals who are participating in the telemedicine session remotely.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Lam establishing a communications link as taught by Amble since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 25, Lam discloses listing the scores of the at least one matched available remote resources on the user interface ([0112] “Referring back to FIG. 1, the determined match score of each user for a same radiology order is outputted. For example, the determined match scores may be stored in memory along with an identification of each corresponding reader and an identification of the radiology order for which the scores have been calculated. In another example, the determined match scores may be transmitted to a display unit to be displayed thereon.”)
Regarding claim 26, Lam discloses wherein the determining of the characteristics for available remote resources includes determining a scheduling availability of the remote resources ([0127] “In one embodiment, historical information about the connections of the readers to the distribution engine is used for determining the availability of the readers and their respective period of availability.”)
and the providing of the user interface displaying the list includes providing the list with the scheduling availability of the at least one matched available remote resources ([0179] “Referring back to FIG. 5, once the adequate readers have been ranked, the ordered list of adequate readers is outputted at step 110. For example, the list may be stored in memory or transmitted to a display unit to be displayed thereon.” [0182] “While in the present description the determination of the readers who may read the radiology order by its due-in-time requirement is done from the list of qualified and available readers, it should be understood that this determination may also be made from […] a list of available readers.”)
Regarding claim 28, Lam discloses performing a feature selection process on the characteristics of the available remote resources ([0140] “In one embodiment, the order expected reading time is calculated based on reader-specific historical data. In this case, the historical data used for calculating the order expected reading time comprises data relative to past orders that were previously analyzed by the given reader only.”)
Lam does not disclose however Amble teaches and the characteristics of the imaging examination ([0118] “each type of classifier requires its own processing of the images and the particular features analyzed by any particular classifier may be widely varied. Very generally, the features analyzed may include pixel based population features of the image, geometric features of the image and/or any other feature of the image that is of interest to a particular classifier.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Lam performing a feature selection process on the characteristics of the available remote resources as taught by Amble since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 30, Lam discloses wherein the characteristics of the available remote resources include at least one of: experience with an imaging modality of the imaging examination; experience with an anatomy of a patient to be imaged during the imaging examination; and experience with a type of problem occurring in the imaging examination ([0141] “the reader experience in years, […] a measure of the reader subspecialties match with the order subspecialties”)
Note: the recitation of subspecialties is mapped to the anatomy of a patient.
Regarding claim 36, Lam discloses a database storing characteristics of the set of remote resources ([0128] “Otherwise, the engine then determines the expected end time of the work shift of the reader using the mean work shift duration stored in the database”)
the characteristics including at least one of: experience with a modality of the imaging examination; experience with an anatomy of a patient to be imaged during the imaging examination; experience working with the imaging examination; and experience with a type of problem occurring in the imaging examination ([0141] “the reader experience in years, […] a measure of the reader subspecialties match with the order subspecialties”)
Note: the recitation of subspecialties is mapped to the anatomy of a patient.
and an electronic processor programmed to: determine characteristics of an imaging examination by applying a model to predict characteristics relevant to the imaging examination ([0142] “The ERT models are built from data mining and analysis on historical data of previous analysis of radiology orders by the readers.” [0137] “The order expected reading time is then dependent on at least one parameter such as the modality, the information contained in the study description, the image body part, any contrast agent used for imaging the body part, the patient age, the number of medical images associated with the radiology order […] The order expected reading time may then be determined from a database containing reference reading times for respective parameter values.”)
retrieve, from the database, characteristics for at least one available
remote resources of the set of remote resources that are available to assist in the imaging examination by the imaging device ([0097] “At step 16, the qualification subspecialty(ies) of each reader is(are) retrieved from the database” [0126] “it is determined which qualified readers are available for analyzing the radiology order” [0141] “In the same or another embodiment, the order expected reading time depends on at least one of the following parameters: the order relative value units (RVUs) value, the order subspecialty(ies), the reader experience in years, the reader subspecialty(ies), a measure of the reader subspecialties match with the order subspecialties, and/or the like.” [0149] “Once the expected reading time for the radiology order has been determined for each reader, the readers who may analyze the radiology order by its due-in-time requirement are identified at step 106.”)
rank the at least one available remote resources based on matching the
characteristics of the at least one available remote resources with characteristics of the imaging examination ([0018] “In one embodiment, the method further comprises the use of the at least one processing unit for assigning at least one of a respective rank and a respective score to each one of the adequate readers using an optimization criteria based on the at least one possible schedule for each reader.” [0105] “Referring to the above example, the pediatric radiology may be considered as more important than the neuroradiology subspecialty, and therefore ranked first while the neuroradiology subspecialty may be ranked second.”)
and provide a user interface (UI) to at least one display device displaying a list of the ranked at least one available remote resources ([0174] “In another example, the list may be sent to a display unit to be displayed thereon.” [0044] “In one embodiment, the system further comprises a ranking unit for assigning at least one of a respective rank and a respective score to each one of the adequate readers, thereby obtaining an ordered list of adequate readers, and outputting the ordered list of adequate readers.”)
enabling selection of one of the at least one available remote resources ([0177] “The readers may be ranked as a function of the increasing total expected reading time. In this case, the reader having the lowest total expected reading time is ranked first, and is selected as being the most adequate reader for analyzing the new order.”)
Lam does not disclose however Amble teaches a screen-sharing device for sharing a control screen of the imaging device ([0032] “In one aspect, a platform is described that allows a practitioner conducting a medical examination and a remote medical practitioner to concurrently share a plurality of different views in real time. By way of example, one of the shared views may be live streamed biometric information (such as radiological images, biometric waveforms, etc.). Another shared view may show a relevant view of the patient being examined”)
an electronic processor operatively connected with an electronic network, the electronic network configured to provide the communication link with a remote resource of a set of remote resources ([0034] “The telemedicine workstations 104, 108, 110 are connected to one another through one or more networks 112 and may optionally also be connected to a cloud based architecture 114.” [0036] “The telemedicine workstation also allows a medical professional at the site of the diagnostic test to communicate with professionals who are participating in the telemedicine session remotely.”)
accept a selection of one of the at least one available remote resources ([0140] “The replay window is arranged to automatically start playing the shared segment when a shared segment is accepted”)
establish the communication link between a site of the imaging device and the selected matched available remote resource to establish an assistance session over the communication link to connect the site of the imaging device and the selected matched available remote resource ([0036] “Generally, the patient telemedicine workstation 104 is situated near a patient who is currently undergoing the diagnostic testing, although this is not a requirement. The patient telemedicine workstation 104 encodes the data streams from the diagnostic testing and transmits them to other participating telemedicine devices (e.g., remote telemedicine workstation 108). As a result, users of those remote telemedicine devices are able to view and participate in the diagnostic test in (near) real time. That is, the media received at the remote telemedicine devices is generally rendered live, although there may be some small delay due to the inherent latencies caused by network conditions and overhead. The telemedicine workstation also allows a medical professional at the site of the diagnostic test to communicate with professionals who are participating in the telemedicine session remotely.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Lam a screen-sharing device, an electronic processor operatively connected with an electronic network the electronic network configured to provide the communication link, accepting a selection of the at least one available remote resources and establishing the communication link between a site of the imaging device and the selected matched available remote resource as taught by Amble since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 27 and 38 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam et al. (US20150347693A1) in view of Amble et al. (US20150035959A1) and further in view of Abedini et al. (US20170177814A1).
Regarding claim 27, Lam in view of Amble does not disclose however Abedini teaches applying a machine learning (ML) algorithm to the characteristics of the available remote resources to rank the at least one matched available remote resources ([0038] “The matching at 226 may be performed by a machine learning based matching engine, which may be more and more accurate based on feedback received from both the parties (e.g., doctors and patients).” [0019] “The methodology in one embodiment of the present disclosure may also provide a ranking of the available doctors in order of their match with the patient, for example, based on Big 5 personality profile.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Lam and Amble application of machine learning as taught by Abedini since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 38, Lam in view of Amble and Rose does not disclose however Abedini teaches apply a machine learning (ML) operation to the characteristics of the at least one available remote resources to rank the at least one available remote resources ([0038] “The matching at 226 may be performed by a machine learning based matching engine, which may be more and more accurate based on feedback received from both the parties (e.g., doctors and patients).” [0019] “The methodology in one embodiment of the present disclosure may also provide a ranking of the available doctors in order of their match with the patient, for example, based on Big 5 personality profile.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Lam and Amble application of machine learning as taught by Abedini since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam et al. (US20150347693A1) in view of Amble et al. (US20150035959A1) and further in view of Golden et al. (US20200380675A1).
Regarding claim 29, Lam in view of Amble does not disclose however Golden teaches wherein the feature selection process is established via a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) process ([0320] “Features may also be combined in a non-linear fashion, e.g., using dimensionality reduction methods such as principal component analysis (PCA)”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Lam and Amble Principal Component Analysis (PCA) process as taught by Golden since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 31-33, 37, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam et al. (US20150347693A1) in view of Amble et al. (US20150035959A1) and further in view of Rose (US20150149195A1).
Regarding claim 31, Lam in view of Amble does not disclose however Rose teaches upon receiving a selection of a selected matched available remote resource from among the at least one matched available remote resource from a user device, providing a menu displaying information about the selected matched available remote resource ([0048] “A radiologist selection icon 82 is selectable by the clinician 40, which invokes a drop-down menu 84 of radiologists in the practice. In some embodiments, a list of radiologist photographs, radiologist names, the radiologist's expertise, and years in the practice pops up in the drop-down menu 84.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Lam and Amble providing a menu displaying information about the selected matched available remote resource as taught by Rose since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 32, Lam in view of Amble does not disclose however Rose teaches upon receiving a selection of one of the at least one matched available remote resource from a user device, establishing a two-way telephonic or video communication link between the selected matched available remote resource and the site of the imaging device and sharing a display of the imaging device at a workstation of the selected matched available remote resource ([0049] “In some embodiments, once the clinician 40 selects one of the radiologists 60 in the drop-down menu 84, a new interactive radiographic study session 200 is invoked. This initiates a handshaking between clinician 40 and radiologist 60 that eventually results in the interactive session 200. FIG. 5B again depicts the video display screen 30 of the clinician 40, this time showing that the clinician has selected “Juan Castillo, MD” from the drop-down menu 84, which automatically causes a pop-up window 102 to appear on the screen 30. The pop-up window 102 is an acknowledgement from the selected radiologist (Dr. Castillo) to the clinician 40 that he saw the request.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Lam and Amble establishing a communication link with the remote resource as taught by Rose since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 33, Lam in view of Amble does not disclose however Rose teaches upon receiving an indication from the selected matched available remote resource of a decline of the communication link, establishing a communication link between another one of the at least one matched available remote resources ([0010] “If the dictating radiologist is not available, a different radiologist (who is likely to be unfamiliar with the case) must start anew, interpret the case, compare his findings to the original reader, and then explain the case to the interested clinician.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Lam and Amble establishing a communication link with another remote resource based on a decline as taught by Rose since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 37, Lam in view of Amble does not disclose however Rose teaches upon receiving input via an input device indicative of a selection of one of the listed ranked at least one available remote resources, establishing a communication link between the selected listed ranked available remote resource and the imaging examination ([0049] “FIG. 5B again depicts the video display screen 30 of the clinician 40, this time showing that the clinician has selected “Juan Castillo, MD” from the drop-down menu 84, which automatically causes a pop-up window 102 to appear on the screen 30. The pop-up window 102 is an acknowledgement from the selected radiologist (Dr. Castillo) to the clinician 40 that he saw the request.” [0053] “In any case, the pop-up window 104 presented to the video display screen 20 of radiologist Dr. Juan Castillo indicates what is happening. In this example, the popup window says, “Clinician Parker requests interactive radiographic study session.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Lam and Amble incorporating establishing a communication link with another remote resource after receiving an input indicative of a selection of one of the listed remote resources as taught by Rose since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 39, Lam in view of Amble does not disclose however Rose teaches upon receiving input via an input device indicative of a selection of one of the listed available at least one remote resources, provide a menu displaying information about the selected matched available remote resource ([0048] “A radiologist selection icon 82 is selectable by the clinician 40, which invokes a drop-down menu 84 of radiologists in the practice. In some embodiments, a list of radiologist photographs, radiologist names, the radiologist's expertise, and years in the practice pops up in the drop-down menu 84.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Lam and Amble providing a menu displaying information about the selected matched available remote resource as taught by Rose since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 34-35 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam et al. (US20150347693A1) in view of Amble et al. (US20150035959A1), Rose et al. (US20150149195A1), and further in view of Reiner (US20080312963A1).
Regarding claim 34, Lam discloses wherein the characteristics of the remote medical imaging experts (RE) are stored in a database ([0128] “Otherwise, the engine then determines the expected end time of the work shift of the reader using the mean work shift duration stored in the database”)
Lam in view of Amble does not disclose however Rose teaches obtain data related to an effectiveness of assistance provided by the selected matched available remote resource ([0077] “FIG. 14 is a simplified diagram showing that the IRS software 72 that invokes the interactive radiographic study session 200 does not simply result in the interactive radiographic study interface 100, but also produces IRS session results 300, such as the date and time of the consultation, the radiologist 60 involved in the consultation, the clinician 40 involved in the consultation, how long the clinician had to wait for a radiologist to engage (pending length), and how long the consultation lasted (consult length). In some embodiments, the session results are stored in a database 250, which also includes the radiographic images 120 and the patient information 98.”)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Lam and Amble obtaining data related to an effectiveness as taught by Rose since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Lam in view of Amble and Rose does not disclose however Reiner teaches calculate one or more quality metrics related to the obtained data ([0144] “According to non-limiting embodiments, data regarding various groups may be maintained in a single database or a group of databases that may be accessed, such that a requestor of PWI information may set desired parameters for a PWI score to be determined (e.g., for a particular imaging center, or a particular doctor), and a PWI score may be calculated.” [0236] “For example, PWI scores and/or comparisons may be used by a third-party payer, a patient, or a potential patient to determine the quality of a particular, physician or other healthcare or provider”)
and update the characteristics of the remote resources stored in the database for the selected matched available remote resource with the calculated one or more quality metrics ([0372] “Updated PWI data presented to end-user (based on revised workflow)” [0375] “All workflow steps may be recorded in XML schema and entered into PWI and workflow databases.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Lam, Amble, and Rose determination of one or more quality metrics & updating the characteristics of the remote resources as taught by Reiner since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 35, Lam in view of Amble does not disclose however Rose teaches collect data related to an effectiveness of assistance provided by the selected matched available remote resource ([0077] “FIG. 14 is a simplified diagram showing that the IRS software 72 that invokes the interactive radiographic study session 200 does not simply result in the interactive radiographic study interface 100, but also produces IRS session results 300, such as the date and time of the consultation, the radiologist 60 involved in the consultation, the clinician 40 involved in the consultation, how long the clinician had to wait for a radiologist to engage (pending length), and how long the consultation lasted (consult length). In some embodiments, the session results are stored in a database 250, which also includes the radiographic images 120 and the patient information 98.”)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Lam and Amble collecting data related to an effectiveness as taught by Rose since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Lam in view of Amble and Rose does not disclose however Reiner teaches perform an adaptive-learning process on the collected data to maximize quality metrics related to the effectiveness of the assistance ([0034] “Creation of a data-driven productivity workflow index would serve the purposes of more accurately measuring user and context-specific performance along with providing valuable feedback for determining best practice guidelines.” [0177] “Educational feedback to identify end-users deficiencies”)
and update the characteristics of the remote resources stored in the database for the selected matched available remote resource with the maximized quality metrics ([0385] “As each new application is opened, PWI and workflow data are recorded and stored in corresponding databases 442.” [0234] “By correlating the PWI and QA data (as discussed herein), one can extract a great deal of information regarding the delicate balance between maximizing productivity (i.e. speed) and quality.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Lam, Amble, and Rose determination of one or more quality metrics & updating the characteristics of the at least one of the remote resources as taught by Reiner since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 40, Lam discloses determining characteristics of a imaging examination by applying a model to predict characteristics relevant to the imaging examination ([0142] “The ERT models are built from data mining and analysis on historical data of previous analysis of radiology orders by the readers.” [0137] “The order expected reading time is then dependent on at least one parameter such as the modality, the information contained in the study description, the image body part, any contrast agent used for imaging the body part, the patient age, the number of medical images associated with the radiology order […] The order expected reading time may then be determined from a database containing reference reading times for respective parameter values.”)
retrieving, from a database, characteristics for at least one remote resources available to assist the imaging examination by the imaging devices ([0097] “At step 16, the qualification subspecialty(ies) of each reader is(are) retrieved from the database” [0126] “it is determined which qualified readers are available for analyzing the radiology order” [0141] “In the same or another embodiment, the order expected reading time depends on at least one of the following parameters: the order relative value units (RVUs) value, the order subspecialty(ies), the reader experience in years, the reader subspecialty(ies), a measure of the reader subspecialties match with the order subspecialties, and/or the like.” [0149] “Once the expected reading time for the radiology order has been determined for each reader, the readers who may analyze the radiology order by its due-in-time requirement are identified at step 106.”)
ranking the available at least one remote resources based on a score indicative of the characteristics of the at least one available remote resources with the characteristics of the imaging examination ([0018] “In one embodiment, the method further comprises the use of the at least one processing unit for assigning at least one of a respective rank and a respective score to each one of the adequate readers using an optimization criteria based on the at least one possible schedule for each reader.” [0105] “Referring to the above example, the pediatric radiology may be considered as more important than the neuroradiology subspecialty, and therefore ranked first while the neuroradiology subspecialty may be ranked second.”)
providing a user interface (UI) to a display device to display a list of the ranked at least one available remote resources ([0174] “In another example, the list may be sent to a display unit to be displayed thereon.” [0044] “In one embodiment, the system further comprises a ranking unit for assigning at least one of a respective rank and a respective score to each one of the adequate readers, thereby obtaining an ordered list of adequate readers, and outputting the ordered list of adequate readers.”)
Lam does not disclose however Amble teaches establishing a communications link between a site of the imaging device and the selected matched available remote resource ([0034] “The telemedicine workstations 104, 108, 110 are connected to one another through one or more networks 112 and may optionally also be connected to a cloud based architecture 114.” [0033] “For convenience, the first telemedicine workstation 104 is sometimes referred to herein as the “patient” or “local” telemedicine workstation since it is preferably positioned at the location of a patient and is used by a technician or practitioner that is interacting with the patient. The second telemedicine workstation 108 is sometimes referred to herein as the “remote” or “specialist” telemedicine workstation since it is typically positioned at a location that is apart from the patient and is most often used by a medical practitioner (such as a specialist, the ordering doctor, etc.) that is participating in the telemedicine session.”)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Lam establishing a communications link as taught by Amble since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Lam in view of Amble does not disclose however Rose teaches receiving a input, via an input device, indicative of a selection of an available remote
resource from the at least one available remote resources ([0048] “A radiologist selection icon 82 is selectable by the clinician 40, which invokes a drop-down menu 84 of radiologists in the practice. In some embodiments, a list of radiologist photographs, radiologist names, the radiologist's expertise, and years in the practice pops up in the drop-down menu 84.”)
collecting data related to an effectiveness of assistance provided by the selected matched available remote resource and the imaging examination ([0077] “FIG. 14 is a simplified diagram showing that the IRS software 72 that invokes the interactive radiographic study session 200 does not simply result in the interactive radiographic study interface 100, but also produces IRS session results 300, such as the date and time of the consultation, the radiologist 60 involved in the consultation, the clinician 40 involved in the consultation, how long the clinician had to wait for a radiologist to engage (pending length), and how long the consultation lasted (consult length). In some embodiments, the session results are stored in a database 250, which also includes the radiographic images 120 and the patient information 98.”)
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Lam and Amble receiving an input indicative of a selection and collecting data related to an effectiveness as taught by Rose since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Lam in view of Amble and Rose does not disclose however Reiner teaches determining one or more quality metrics related to the collected data ([0144] “According to non-limiting embodiments, data regarding various groups may be maintained in a single database or a group of databases that may be accessed, such that a requestor of PWI information may set desired parameters for a PWI score to be determined (e.g., for a particular imaging center, or a particular doctor), and a PWI score may be calculated.”)
updating the characteristics for the at least one remote resources stored in the database for the selected matched available remote resource with the determined one or more quality metrics ([0372] “Updated PWI data presented to end-user (based on revised workflow)” [0375] “All workflow steps may be recorded in XML schema and entered into PWI and workflow databases.”)
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Lam, Amble, and Rose determination of one or more quality metrics & updating the characteristics of the at least one of remote resources as taught by Reiner since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 09 January 2026 have been considered but are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the USC 112(a) rejection, applicant has amended claim 24, to delete language noted in the rejection. Applicant has also pointed out [0050] and [0041] to support claims 21, 36, and 40. Therefore, the USC 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the USC 112(b) rejection, applicant has amended claim 24, to delete language noted in the rejection. Applicant has also pointed out [0050] and [0041] to support claims 21, 36, and 40. Therefore, the USC 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the USC 101 rejection, applicant cites the August 4, 2025 USPTO Memo and Ex parte Desjardins et al. to argue on pages 10 to 11 that the claims are not the claims as drafted do not properly fall into any of the specific sub-categories to which the "certain methods of organizing human activity" are expressly limited. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(11)). Applicant cites various court cases from the MPEP that provide examples of human activity. Applicant asserts that the claims are not similar to any of the examples for managing interactions between people described in MPEP 2106, and thus the do not properly fall into any of the specific sub-categories to which the "certain methods of organizing human activity" are expressly limited. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(11)).
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. Examiner asserts the claims still recite organizing human activity as it involves managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people (e.g., encompassing concepts of matching, workflow optimization, collaboration, etc.). The applicant’s invention revolves around the “remote resources” which are clearly “medical imaging experts” i.e., humans. The applicant seems to take a much broader interpretation of USC 101 and attempts to stretch the claim limitations to argue that the claims are not abstract. Examiner points to the USPTO October 2019 Guidance (also incorporated in MPEP 2106) which states that claims can recite an abstract idea even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The USPTO October 2019 Guidance is clear in that the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite an abstract idea even though the limitations may not be entirely performed by humans. The concept of sorting/searching & filtering queries is conceptually analogous to manual file keeping operations similar to how a librarian searches or ranks results. The computers in the claims are not used in a specific, inventive way. The claims are very outcome-focused and do not detail how each of the outcomes are reached. The present model claimed is a black box model with no clarity on the actual computer processing or how the computer is programmed to achieve the results in a non-abstract way different from how humans analyze/process data. Examiner asserts that the August 4, 2025 Memo from the USPTO does not apply to the present invention as that memo was in regard to inventions that demonstrated improvements to AI
technology and thus were AI-focused inventions; this is clearly not the case for
the present invention. Similarly, the fact pattern for Ex parte Desjardins is different than the present case since it was directed to an invention that was providing an improvement to artificial intelligence; not true for the present case. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that applicant’s invention is directed to judicial exception, as also confirmed by multiple subject matter experts at the USPTO. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to ‘implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer’, it cannot save OIP's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted).
On pages 12 to 14 the applicant cites multiple court cases argues that the “how” in claim 21 is provided by including use of a model to predict characteristics relevant to an imaging examination, and matching available remote resources based on these characteristics. Applicant specifies that the matching done for an imaging examination claims enhance efficient resource allocation and provides advantages for more efficient imaging. That the efficiencies achieved by matching and connecting experts is not a historical usage, and allows for current and/or future resource allocations. Collectively, the elements allow for determining the optimum resources and improving the workflow/resource allocation. Applicant asserts that the independent claims are directed to the practical application of improving the reliability of an imaging examination, including identifying a matched expert resource, establishing a communications link between a local operator and the matched expert resource, and conducting an assistance session or similar over the communications link during the imagining examination by the local operator. Applicant requests withdrawal of the USC 101 rejection.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. The arguments do not help advance prosecution under USC 101. Examiner asserts the present specification provides a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The MPEP provides that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field can signal eligibility, see MPEP 2106.05(a), and provides examples of improvements to computer functionality, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), and improvements to any other technology of technical field, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool”. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification' s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general-purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. Unlike Enfish, the instant claimed invention appears to improve upon a judicial exception rather than a problem in the software arts. Rather than improving a computer's algorithm (i.e., solving a technically based problem), the claimed invention purports to solve the non-technological problem of common workflow disruptions in diagnostic imaging (e.g., lack of proper guidance for newly appointed technicians, technicians' lack of experience on imaging machines from various vendors with different control interfaces and features, and lack of knowledge of imaging protocols; [0003] of specification) by providing over the shoulder guidance to the technicians. In other words, one of the main/glaring issues with the present invention is that the problem solved by the applicant is not a technological problem. For instance, all the applicant is doing is applying known technology (i.e., computers/a generic model) for their intended benefit(s) to a new data environment and calling it an improvement (see Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., Case No.18-2239 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020).
The examiner still asserts the following facts that the applicant has not been able to dispute with supporting evidence:
1) the invention does NOT involve a novel algorithm or data structure that significantly improves the computer's functionality,
2) the invention does NOT involve a new hardware component or configuration that works with the computer to achieve a specific technical benefit, and
3) the computer is NOT used in a completely new way demonstrating a significant technical advancement.
Claim 21 does not describe the “how” that would be helpful for eligibility. Rather, it is evident from the specification and claims that the applicant is not improving computer technology, and instead providing an improvement to the abstract idea by automation of human tasks. An improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement to computer technology. Thus, examiner does not see how the present claims improve the functioning of a computer or provide improvements to any other technology or technical field. The claimed invention appears similar to the example of improvements that are insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality such as arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)(viii). The broad claims are lacking concrete limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner points out that the claimed limitations have no indication in the specification that the operations recited invoke any inventive programming, require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (fed Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”). Most importantly, in DDR Holdings & unlike the present claims, the claims at issue specified how interactions with the Internet were manipulated to yield a desired result—a result that overrode the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink. 773 F.3d at 1258; 113 USPQ2d at 1106. The examiner also points out that there is no indication in the specification that the claimed invention affects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner points to the recitation of model/machine learning (ML) in the claim(s) as generic. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208 223 (2014). Applicant does not and cannot contend they invented the concept of machine learning, nor does the specification disclose any new machine learning technique. In fact, the applicant’s specification [0022]-[0023] recognizes known machine learning models in the art. The alleged improvement of using the machine learning model lies in the abstract idea itself, not to any technological improvement nor to any improvement to the functioning of a computer. See BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The fact pattern of the applicant’s claims is congruent to the Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 2025 U.S.P.Q.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 2025) decision by the Federal Circuit. Just like in Recentive, the present claims do not delineate steps through which the machine learning technology achieves an improvement. See, e.g., IBM v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding abstract a claim that "d[id] not sufficiently describe how to achieve [its stated] results in a non-abstract way," because "[s]uch functional claim language, without more, is insufficient for patentability under our law." (quoting Two-Way Media Ltd v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017))); see also Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (similar); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (similar). Claiming a mere concept or functional result without disclosing the implementation details does not overcome USC 101. Applying an established technique to a new field or data set is insufficient for patent eligibility. Examiner further points out that improving efficiency (pg. 14 of the applicant’s arguments of record) is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality as set forth by the courts in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015); claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. This further supports the examiner’s assertion that the claims do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. To show an involvement of a computer assists in improving technology, the claims must recite details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). In Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems the courts found that the claims were “directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality…” (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The present invention clearly does not meet the condition set forth by the courts and thus is not integrated into a practical application. The applicant has still not demonstrated that their invention is inventive; thus, the present invention is not patent-eligible under USC 101. Therefore, the USC 101 rejection is strongly maintained.
Regarding the USC 103 rejection, applicant argues that claim 21 is directed to a CRM that enables connections between imaging experts (e.g., at a center command center) and technologists and onsite staff in locations across an entire enterprise for real-time collaboration. That the collaboration takes place during the imaging examination by the local staff with the assistance of the imaging expert; in contrast, the cited reference Lam is directed to matching "readers" with "radiology orders" including previously obtained images to be analyzed that are "due-in-time". Applicant asserts that Lam is identifying characteristics of medical images that have already been obtained and potential readers who can review the existing medical images within a deadline. In addition, applicant asserts that Lam seeks to seeks to find qualified readers of given radiology reports and does not assess "characteristics of available remote resources" to "assist in performance of the imaging examination by the one or more imaging devices.” Applicant also states that there is no proper reason to establish a communication link in Lam between a reader and the site of the imaging device, or any reason to enable one or more of one or more of communication, screen sharing, a video feed from a video camera of the imaging device, or control between the site of the imaging device and the at least one matched available remote resource.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. It is evident that the applicant’s claim construction is clearly at issue here leading to different BRIs. In response to applicant's arguments that Lam fails to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the collaboration takes place during the imaging examination by the
local staff with the assistance of the imaging expert) is not recited in the rejected claim 21. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language “assist in performance of the imaging examination by the one or more imaging devices” would not be limited to specifically indicating the collaboration taking place during the imaging examination. Additionally, the limitation of “assist in performance of the imaging examination by the one or more imaging devices” is considered an intended result limitation since it specifies the purpose or need the invention is designed to solve.
For claims 36 and 40, the applicant makes a similar argument as claim 21 where the applicant argues that Lam does not teach retrieval from a database, and that even if Lam was combined with the applied secondary references, the resultant would not include the limitations of independent claims 36 and 40 in which characteristics are retrieved from a database for one or more remote medical imaging experts of the set of remote medical imaging experts. Applicant asserts that the dependent claims are allowable for similar reasons. Applicant requests withdrawal of the USC 103 rejection.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. Lam does perform retrieval from a database and when combine with secondary references, the resultant would not include the limitations of independent claims 36 and 40. In response to applicant's arguments that Lam fails to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the collaboration takes place during the imaging examination by the
local staff with the assistance of the imaging expert) is not recited in the rejected claim 36 & 40. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language “assist in the
imaging examination by the imaging device” would not be limited to specifically indicating the collaboration taking place during the imaging examination. The dependent claims are still rejected under USC 103. Therefore, the USC 103 rejection is maintained.
Prior Art Cited but Not Relied Upon
The following document was found relevant to the disclosure but not applied:
Bui, D. T., Barnett, T., Hoang, H. T., & Chinthammit, W. (2021). Tele-mentoring using augmented reality technology in healthcare: A systematic review. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(4), 68-88.
This reference is relevant since it discloses tele-mentoring trainees to perform their tasks in the healthcare environment.
Conclusion
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 WINSTON FURTADO whose telephone number is (571)272-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM 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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/WINSTON R FURTADO/Examiner, Art Unit 3687