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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 3/17/2026. Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 13, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
A. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant reasserts that the claims, as a whole, are not directed to an abstract idea in the form of a method of organizing human activity, and cites the decisions in McRO, Inc and Enfish LLC as establishing that the inquiry under Step 2A Prong 1 is whether the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1) states that “In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.” MPEP 2106.04 further explains that “Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above,” and that “[i]f the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One.” The rejection presented below under 35 USC 101 provides this analysis under Step 2A Prong 1 of the analysis, listing the specific limitations interpreted as falling within the scope of a certain method of organizing human activity and providing a further rationale for this conclusion.
While each of Applicant’s arguments and citations discuss Step 2A requiring a determination of whether the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception, Step 2A is a Two-Prong Inquiry (see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)). Applicant is arguing the standard to be applied under Step 2A Prong 1, but cites sources which only address the combination of Prongs 1 and 2 within Step 2A. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) states that “Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception,” and that “under Prong Two, a claim that recites a judicial exception is not directed to that judicial exception, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Prong Two thus distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception.” Examiner is not disputing that the claim is evaluated as a whole under Step 2A Prong 2, but maintains that the correct standard has been applied under Prong 1 of the 2-Prong analysis as specifically argued by Applicant.
Applicant argues again that the claims do not fall within the “following rules or instructions” sub-group of certain methods of organizing human activity, asserting that “[h]ere, since the Patent Office asserts that the applicable sub-category of "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" is "following rules or instructions," and not either "teaching" or "social activities," the examples of "following rules or instructions" found in the MPEP are directly applicable.” However, Examiner’s remarks do not limit the applicable categories of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” exclusively to “following rules or instructions.” The cited example in MPEP 2106.04(a)(II)(C) of Voter Verified v. Election Systems is described in the MPEP as reciting social activities, while the example of Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Capital One Bank is explicitly described in 2106.04(a)(II)(C) as an example of a claim reciting managing personal behavior. Examiner maintains that the examples of In re Marco Guldenaar Holding BV and In re Brown do not contradict Examiner’s construction of subject matter encompassed by "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people."
In the present case, the activity is allocating examinations among medical professionals, performed by tracking examinations performed or reviewed by a plurality of medical professionals, calculating one or more metrics for at least one medical professional of the plurality of medical professionals based on the tracked examinations, the one or more metrics including a diversity metric indicative of a diversity of different types of examinations performed or reviewed by the medical professional, and allocating upcoming examinations among the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals based at least in part on the one or more metrics calculated for the at least one medical professional of the plurality of medical professionals. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that a human being does not perform the above functions. A human being is capable of allocating upcoming examinations to medical professionals, and is capable of doing so using different criteria such as the diversity of examinations seen by a particular medical professional or the medical professional’s efficiency.
Applicant further argues starting on page 17 that the claims are integrated into a practical application, stating that “[f]or example, the claims comprise a practical application because the invention applies and uses the alleged abstract idea in a particular technological environment,” and that “[t]he elements of the independent claims, for example, when viewed as a whole integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by sufficiently limiting the use of the alleged abstract idea to the very specific system and method.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially, and with regard to Applicant’s assertion that the claims comprise a practical application on the basis that they use the alleged abstract idea in a particular technological environment, Examiner notes that MPEP 2106.05(h) specifically sets out that “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” With respect to the assertion that the claims “integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by sufficiently limiting the use of the alleged abstract idea to the very specific system and method,” a general assertion about the narrowness of the claims is not sufficient to establish that the claims are integrated into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that claims 7-9 integrate the abstract idea into a practical application based on the recitation of “applying a reinforcement learning model (RL) to analyze the calculated one or more metrics to allocate the examinations to corresponding medical professionals.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As addressed in the rejection of those specific claims, merely applying computer technology, including computer algorithms, as tools to implement the abstract idea is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As explained in the rejection with respect to the argued limitation, claim 7 only recites the reinforcement learning model at a high level of generality as applied “to analyze the calculated one or more metrics to allocate the examinations to corresponding medical professionals.” The disclosure similarly provides a broad description of the model as implemented to analyze the calculated diversity metrics and the efficiency metrics. Simply reciting a category of algorithm, in this case a reinforcement learning algorithm, as applied in order to perform data analysis tasks falling within the scope of the abstract idea is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
C. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 10, 13, and 14 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 USC 103 is made in view of Benjamin et al as set out below.
D. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 2, 4-9, 11, 12, and 15-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues starting on page 25 that Bedi does not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 20, and particularly that the combination of Bedi and Benjamin does not disclose or suggest tracking completion times for performing or reviewing the examinations against corresponding expected completion times for performing or reviewing the examinations and using these tracked times to allocate upcoming examinations among medical professionals. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner initially notes that Applicant's arguments amount to a piecemeal analysis of the cited references, and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the present case, Bedi is relied upon to disclose both calculating an efficiency metric based on completion times for performing or reviewing the examinations and allocating examinations using that efficiency metric. Examiner notes that the claim does not specify how the efficiency metric is used beyond reciting that allocation is performed “based at least in part on” the efficiency metric. Benjamin is then relied on to teach that it was old and well-known to calculate an efficiency metric based on tracking completion times against corresponding expected completion times for performing or reviewing the examinations. Calculating the efficiency metric of Bedi in this manner taught by Benjamin would yield predictable results regardless of whether Benjamin teaches using the efficiency metric to allocate examinations since the claim does not recite the efficiency metric being used for allocation in a manner which would conflict with the combined subject matter of Benjamin.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees that Benjamin does not teach using the efficiency metric to allocate examinations. As cited, paragraphs 143, 144, and 266 of Benjamin describe both calculating a metric based a radiologist’s median turn-around time for cases and the expected SLA times for the cases as well as that metric being used to change the cases available to the radiologist.
The rejection of claims 2, 4-9, 11, 12, and 15-20 under 35 USC 103 is therefore maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 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. Claims 1-12 are drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium, while claims 13-19 and claim 20 are drawn to respective methods, each of which is within the four statutory categories.
Step 2A(1)
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of:
tracking examinations performed or reviewed by a plurality of medical professionals, wherein at least some of the examinations comprises at least one of a plurality of different examination modalities;
calculating one or more metrics for at least one medical professional of the plurality of medical professionals based on the tracked examinations, the one or more metrics including a diversity metric derived from a distribution of the tracked examinations across the plurality of different examination modalities, the diversity metric indicating a degree to which the tracked examinations for the at least one medical professional are distributed among the plurality of different examination modalities; and
allocating one or more upcoming examinations among the plurality of medical professionals based at least in part on the one or more metrics calculated for the at least one medical professional of the plurality of medical professionals, wherein the allocation is configured to increase the degree to which the tracked examinations for the at least one medical professional are distributed among the plurality of different examination modalities.
These steps amount to a form of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and therefore fall within the scope of method of organizing human activity. Fundamentally the process is that of assigning examinations to medical professionals based on the types of examinations previously performed or reviewed by the particular medical professionals. This process could be performed by a medical administrator as part of medical examination workflows at a healthcare facility.
Claim 13 recites, in part, performing the steps of:
tracking examinations performed or reviewed by a plurality of medical professionals, wherein at least some of the examinations comprises at least one of a plurality of different types of examinations, and wherein the tracking includes tracking the types of the examinations;
calculating a diversity metric for at least one medical professional of the plurality of medical professionals, wherein the diversity metric is derived from a distribution of the tracked examinations across the plurality of different examination types, the diversity metric indicating a degree to which the tracked examinations for the at least one medical professional are distributed among the plurality of different examination types; and
allocating upcoming examinations among the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals based at least in part on the diversity metrics calculated for the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals, wherein the allocation is configured to increase the degree to which the tracked examinations for the at least one medical professional are distributed among the plurality of different examination types.
These steps amount to a form of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and therefore fall within the scope of method of organizing human activity. Fundamentally the process is that of assigning examinations to medical professionals based on the types of examinations previously performed or reviewed by the particular medical professionals. This process could be performed by a medical administrator as part of medical examination workflows at a healthcare facility.
Claim 20 recites, in part, performing the steps of:
tracking examinations performed or reviewed by a plurality of medical professionals wherein the tracking includes tracking types of the examinations;
calculating an efficiency metric for each medical professional of the plurality of medical professionals based on tracked completion times for performing or reviewing the examinations against corresponding expected completion times for performing or reviewing the examinations; and
allocating upcoming examinations among the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals based at least in part on the efficiency metrics calculated for the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals.
These steps amount to a form of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and therefore fall within the scope of method of organizing human activity. Fundamentally the process is that of assigning examinations to medical professionals based on the time taken by the particular medical professionals to complete previously assigned examinations. This process could be performed by a medical administrator as part of medical examination workflows at a healthcare facility.
Step 2A(2)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a) a non-transitory computer readable medium recited as storing instructions, and b) at least one electronic processor recited as executing the instructions and performing the subsequent functions.
Page 5 line 30 – page 6 line 2 states that non-transitory storage media “may, by way of non-limiting illustrative example, include one or more of a magnetic disk, RAID, or other magnetic storage medium; a solid-state drive, flash drive, electronically erasable read-only memory (EEROM) or other electronic memory; an optical disk or other optical storage; various combinations thereof; or so forth.” The non-transitory computer readable medium is therefore construed as encompassing generic computer storage devices.
Page 5 lines 22 – 25 describe an electronic processing device as, for example, a server “include[ing] typical components, such as an electronic processor 20 (e.g., a microprocessor).” The at least one electronic processor is therefore construed as encompassing generic computer processing devices.
Each of the above elements only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computing elements as tools. For example, the non-transitory computer readable medium is recited at a high level of generality as storing instructions, with the processor also recited at a high level of generality as executing the stored instructions and performing the subsequent data processing functions. These elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claim 1 only recites the non-transitory computer readable medium and electronic processor as tools for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Depending Claims
Claim 2 recites outputting a representation of the one or more metrics. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 2 recites the additional element of at least one display device as used to output the representation of the one or more metrics.
Page 5 lines 26 – 27 describe the display device as “a display device 24 (e.g., an LCD display, plasma display, cathode ray tube display, and/or so forth).” The display device is therefore construed as encompassing generic computer display devices.
The above element only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computing elements as tools. Specifically, the display device is only recited at a high level of generality as used to output the recited representation. This element is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites wherein the diversity metric comprises a cross-modality score calculated based on the modality of the medical device and indicative of a diversity of examinations of one of different modalities and a different examination type performed or reviewed by the medical professional. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 4 recites wherein calculating one or more metrics based on the tracked examinations includes: calculating an efficiency metric for at least one medical professional of the plurality of medical professionals, the efficiency metric being indicative of a time taken by the medical professional to perform or review an examination against an expected time to perform the examination aggregated over the examinations performed or reviewed by the medical professional; wherein the upcoming examinations are distributed among the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals based on both the calculated diversity metric and the calculated efficiency metric. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 5 recites wherein calculating one or more metrics based on the tracked examinations includes: calculating an efficiency metric for at least one medical professional of the plurality of medical professionals, the efficiency metric being based on relative value unit (RVU) metrics assigned to the examinations performed or reviewed by the medical professional; wherein the upcoming examinations are distributed among the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals based on both the calculated diversity metric and the calculated efficiency metric. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 6 and 17 recite wherein calculating one or more metrics based on the tracked examinations includes: calculating a cross-modality score based on the efficiency metric relative to one of a modality or examination type of a medical device used in the examination. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 7 and 18 recite wherein the allocating of examinations includes: analyzing the calculated one or more metrics to allocate the examinations to corresponding medical professionals. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 7 and 18 further recite the additional element of applying a reinforcement learning model (RL) to perform the analysis.
Page 6 lines 20 – 22 state that “[i]n some embodiments, the electronic processor 34 is configured to implement a reinforcement learning model (RL) 36.” Page 9 lines 19 – 23 further provide that “[i]n some embodiments the RL model 36 can be implemented to analyze the 20 calculated diversity metrics 38 and the efficiency metrics 40” and that “[i]n another example, the RL model 36 can be implemented with training data, such as an upcoming or scheduled training session.” No further disclosure is provided of the structure of the model or how the reinforcement learning model actually analyzes the metrics. The reinforcement learning model is therefore construed as encompassing generic reinforcement learning algorithms.
The above element only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computing elements as tools. Specifically, the reinforcement learning model is only recited at a high level of generality as used to analyze the one or more metrics to allocate the examinations. Merely reciting the use of a category of algorithm, such as a reinforcement learning model, at a high level of generality to implement the analysis of data within the abstract idea is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites the additional element of wherein the RL model is trained with training data comprising upcoming or scheduled training sessions.
Page 9 lines 19 – 23 further provide that “[i]n another example, the RL model 36 can be implemented with training data, such as an upcoming or scheduled training session,” and that “[t]he training data can establish proficiency, and upcoming training sessions can show a need for reinforcement of the RL model 36.” No further disclosure is provided of how the reinforcement learning model is actually trained using the training data. The reinforcement learning model and its training is therefore construed as encompassing generic reinforcement learning algorithms and training processes.
The above element only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computing elements as tools. Specifically, training the reinforcement learning model is only recited at a high level of generality as using “training data comprising upcoming or scheduled training sessions.” Merely reciting the use of training data to train an algorithm, such as a reinforcement learning model, at a high level of generality is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites wherein the allocating of examinations includes: assigning an individual medical professional an examination having a modality in which the individual medical professional does not satisfy a predetermined modality metric; and re-assigning an examination to a second individual medical professional having a modality in which the second medical professional does not satisfy a predetermined modality metric after initially assigning the examination to a first individual medical professional satisfying the predetermined modality metric. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 10 recites wherein the allocating of examinations includes: allocating the examinations based on one or more of a schedule of the medical professionals and a priority of a corresponding examination. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 11 recites wherein the medical examinations comprise radiology examinations and the plurality of medical professionals comprise remote experts providing remote assistance to imaging technologists performing the radiology examinations, and the method distributes assistance requests to the remote experts (RE). These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 11 further recites the additional element of “an information technology (IT) infrastructure” as used to provide the remote assistance.
Page 10 lines 26 – 29 state that the system “provides an information technology (IT) infrastructure facilitating communication between radiologists and technologists, for example via a telephonic, video call, or other real-time interface and optionally also via asynchronous communication pathways such as an electronic ticketing system and chat functionality.” The IT infrastructure is therefore construed as encompasses generic analog and digital communication mechanisms.
The above element only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computing elements as tools. Specifically, the IT infrastructure is only recited at a high level of generality in the context of the remote assistance being provided “via an information technology (IT) infrastructure.” The use of “information technology” to facilitate communication is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites wherein the tracking utilizes log data of the IT infrastructure via which the remote experts (RE) provide remote assistance to the imaging technologists performing the radiology examinations. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 12 further recites the additional element of IT infrastructure via which the remote experts (RE) providing remote assistance as the source of the log data.
As cited above, page 10 lines 26 – 29 state that the system “provides an information technology (IT) infrastructure facilitating communication between radiologists and technologists, for example via a telephonic, video call, or other real-time interface and optionally also via asynchronous communication pathways such as an electronic ticketing system and chat functionality.” Page 11 lines 7 – 9 further provide that “the KPIs for computing the cross-modality scores can be readily obtained or derived from records maintained by the ROCC itself, e.g. the ROCC can log the assistance requests handled by each expert by modality or other breakdown(s).”
The above element only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computing elements as tools. Specifically, the IT infrastructure is only recited at a high level of generality in the context of the remote assistance being provided “via an information technology (IT) infrastructure” and as a source of the log data. The use of “information technology” to facilitate communication and provide information on the communication is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites wherein the examinations are radiology examinations, and the types of the examinations include examinations performed using differing imaging modalities. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 15 recites wherein the tracking further includes tracking completion times for performing or reviewing the examinations, the method further comprising: calculating an efficiency metric for at least one medical professional of the plurality of medical professionals based on the tracked completion times for performing or reviewing the examinations against corresponding expected completion times for performing or reviewing the examinations; wherein the upcoming examinations are allocated among the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals further based on the efficiency metrics calculated for the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 16 recites wherein the tracking further includes tracking completion times for performing or reviewing the examinations, the method further comprising: calculating an efficiency metric for at least one medical professional of the plurality of medical professionals based on relative value units (RVUs) assigned to the examinations performed or reviewed by the medical professional; wherein the upcoming examinations are allocated among the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals further based on the efficiency metrics calculated for the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claim 19 recites wherein the allocating of examinations includes: assigning an individual medical professional an examination having one of a modality or examination type in which the individual medical professional does not satisfy a predetermined modality metric; and re-assigning an examination to a second individual medical professional having a modality in which the second medical professional does not satisfy a predetermined modality metric after initially assigning the examination to a first individual medical professional satisfying the predetermined modality metric. These limitations fall within the scope of the abstract idea as set out above.
Claims 1-20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The previous rejection of claim 17 under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn based on the amendment filed 3/17/2026.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the examination" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim only previously broadly recites a plurality of examinations, and the claim does not make clear which examination is being referenced
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedi et al (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0018674) in view of Benjamin et al (US Patent Application Publication 20200265946).
With respect to claim 1, Bedi discloses the claimed a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by at least one electronic processor ([47] describes the disclosed functions being performed by a processor reading stored instructions from non-transitory media), the at least one electronic processor configured to:
track examinations performed or reviewed by a plurality of medical professionals ([12], [34], and [35] describe a radiology study assignment system tracking and evaluating reports for studies performed by radiologists), wherein at least some of the examinations comprises at least one of a plurality of different examination modalities ([17], [34], [35], [38], and [42] describe tracking the imaging modality for the studies across a plurality of modalities);
calculate one or more metrics for at least one medical professional of the plurality of medical professionals based on the tracked examinations, the one or more metrics including a diversity metric ([34]-[42] describe calculating index scores for each radiologist based on a plurality of factors, where the indexes incorporate scores across study types and for different modalities); and
allocate, by the at least one electronic processor, one or more upcoming examinations among the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals based at least in part on the one or more metrics calculated for the at least one medical professional of the plurality of medical professionals ([34], [42], and claim 18 describe assigning new studies to a radiologist using the quality indexes for study type, modality, procedure type, and other values);
but does not expressly disclose:
the diversity metric derived from a distribution of the tracked examinations across the plurality of different examination modalities, the diversity metric indicating a degree to which the tracked examinations for the at least one medical professional are distributed among the plurality of different examination modalities; and
wherein the allocation is configured to increase the degree to which the tracked examinations for the at least one medical professional are distributed among the plurality of different examination modalities.
However, Benjamin teaches that it was old and well known in the art of image study routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to derive a diversity metric from a distribution of tracked examinations across a plurality of different examination modalities, the diversity metric indicating a degree to which the tracked examinations for at least one medical professional are distributed among the plurality of different examination modalities ([181], [194], [242], [279], [287], and [289] describe tracking a radiologist “cherry-picking” cases of specific modalities based on their preferred modality and type. Examiner notes that the claim does not limit either the scope of a “metric” or how the metric is generated beyond that it is “derived” from the distribution of tracked examinations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “metric” is not limited to a numerical representation, and “derived” only requires that the information be used in some fashion. If Applicant desires a more specific construction of these terms Examiner recommends amending the claims to more particularly recite both what constitutes a “metric” and how the metric is calculated using the distribution), and allocate examinations wherein the allocation is configured to increase the degree to which the tracked examinations for the at least one medical professional are distributed among the plurality of different examination modalities ([242], [279], and [289]-[293] describe identifying radiologists who have cherry-picked by not doing their share of undesirable modalities and forcibly assigning cases of the undesirable type to them, i.e. increasing the degree to which the examinations received by the radiologist are distributed across the examination modalities).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of image study routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bedi to derive a diversity metric from a distribution of tracked examinations across a plurality of different examination modalities, the diversity metric indicating a degree to which the tracked examinations for at least one medical professional are distributed among the plurality of different examination modalities, and allocate examinations wherein the allocation is configured to increase the degree to which the tracked examinations for the at least one medical professional are distributed among the plurality of different examination modalities as taught by Benjamin since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Bedi already discloses determining a distribution metric involving a distribution of modalities for a medical professional and using it to assign further examinations, and deriving the metric from the distribution and having the allocation increase the degree of distribution of tracked examination modalities as taught by Benjamin would serve those same functions in Bedi, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 2, Bedi/Benjamin teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, further comprising:
outputting a representation of the one or more metrics ([35]-[41] describe plotting the scores for a particular radiologist; [42] describes providing management with average scores across different specialties, locations, and shifts, i.e. a representation of the metrics);
but does not expressly disclose:
outputting the representation on at least one display device.
However, Benjamin teaches that it was old and well known in the art of medical case routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to output a representation of one or more metrics on a display device (Figure 3, [165], [264], [266], and [282] describe an interface displaying metrics based on tracked examinations such as completed examinations of different types/categories, RVUs earned, and turn-around times).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical case routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bedi and Benjamin to output a representation of the one or more metrics on at least one display device as taught by Benjamin since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Bedi and Benjamin already teaches outputting a representation of the metrics, and doing so on a display device as taught by Benjamin would perform that same function in the combination of Bedi and Benjamin, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 3, Bedi/Benjamin teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1. Bedi further discloses:
wherein the diversity metric comprises a cross-modality score calculated based on the modality of the medical device and indicative of a diversity of examinations of one of different modalities and a different examination type performed or reviewed by the medical professional ([34], [35], [38], and [42] describe aggregated quality indexes calculated based on particular modality for a study and containing information from across different modalities of the studies).
With respect to claim 4, Bedi/Benjamin teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1. Bedi further discloses:
wherein calculating one or more metrics based on the tracked examinations comprises:
calculating an efficiency metric for at least one medical professional of the plurality of medical professionals, the efficiency metric being indicative of a time taken by the medical professional to perform or review an examination aggregated over the examinations performed or reviewed by the medical professional ([28], [34], and [42] describe tracking turn-around time for the studies);
wherein the upcoming examinations are distributed among the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals based on both the calculated diversity metric and the calculated efficiency metric ([28] and [42] describe assigning future studies based on both turn-around time and the other index scores);
but does not expressly disclose:
the efficiency metric indicative of the time taken by the medical professional against an expected time to perform the examination.
However, Benjamin teaches that it was old and well known in the art of medical case routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate an efficiency metric indicative of a time taken by the medical professional to perform or review an examination against an expected time to perform the examination ([144] and [266] describe calculating a metric based on a radiologist’s median turn-around time for cases based on the expected SLA times for the cases).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical case routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bedi and Benjamin to calculate an efficiency metric indicative of a time taken by the medical professional to perform or review an examination against an expected time to perform the examination as taught by Benjamin since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Bedi and Benjamin already teaches calculating an efficiency metric based on the time taken by a medial professional to perform or review an examination, and calculating the efficiency metric based on that value against an expected time to perform the examination as taught by Benjamin would perform that same function in the combination of Bedi and Benjamin, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 5, Bedi/Benjamin teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1. Bedi further discloses:
wherein calculating one or more metrics based on the tracked examinations comprises:
calculating an efficiency metric for at least one medical professional of the plurality of medical professionals, the efficiency metric being based on the examinations performed or reviewed by the medical professional ([28], [34], and [42] describe tracking turn-around time for the studies);
wherein the upcoming examinations are distributed among the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals based on both the calculated diversity metric and the calculated efficiency metric ([28] and [42] describe assigning future studies based on both turn-around time and the other index scores);
but does not expressly disclose:
the efficiency metric being based on relative value unit (RVU) metrics assigned to the examinations.
However, Benjamin teaches that it was old and well known in the art of medical case routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate an efficiency metric based on relative value unit (RVU) metrics assigned to the examinations ([165] and [282] describe calculating a metric based on number of cases ready by a radiologist per unit time weighted by RVU as well as metrics representing the radiologist’s RVU accumulation over a period of time and compared to peers).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical case routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bedi and Benjamin to calculate an efficiency metric based on relative value unit (RVU) metrics assigned to the examinations as taught by Benjamin since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Bedi and Benjamin already teaches calculating an efficiency metric based on cases performed or reviewed, and calculating the efficiency metric based on relative value unit (RVU) metrics assigned to the examinations as taught by Benjamin would perform that same function in the combination of Bedi and Benjamin, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 10, Bedi/Benjamin teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1. Bedi further discloses:
wherein the allocating of examinations further comprises:
allocating the examinations based on one or more of a schedule of the medical professionals and a priority of a corresponding examination ([26] and [28] describe maintaining calendars of radiologist availability and assigning studies based on the availability of the radiologist).
With respect to claim 13, Bedi discloses the claimed method of distributing medical examinations to medical professionals, the method comprising:
tracking examinations performed or reviewed by a plurality of medical professionals, wherein at least some of the examinations comprises at least one of a plurality of different types of examinations, and wherein the tracking includes tracking the types of the examinations ([12], [34], [35]-[38], and [42] describe a radiology study assignment system tracking and evaluating reports for studies performed by radiologists, including a plurality of types such as modalities);
calculating a diversity metric for at least one medical professional of the plurality of medical professionals ([34]-[42] describe calculating index scores for each radiologist based on a plurality of factors for each study, where the indexes incorporate scores across study types and for different modalities); and
allocating upcoming examinations among the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals based at least in part on the diversity metrics calculated for the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals ([34], [42], and claim 18 describe assigning new studies to a radiologist using the quality indexes for study type, modality, procedure type, and other values);
but does not expressly disclose:
the diversity metric derived from a distribution of the tracked examinations across the plurality of different examination types, the diversity metric indicating a degree to which the tracked examinations for the at least one medical professional are distributed among the plurality of different examination types; and
wherein the allocation is configured to increase the degree to which the tracked examinations for the at least one medical professional are distributed among the plurality of different examination types.
However, Benjamin teaches that it was old and well known in the art of image study routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to derive a diversity metric from a distribution of tracked examinations across a plurality of different examination types, the diversity metric indicating a degree to which the tracked examinations for at least one medical professional are distributed among the plurality of different examination types ([181], [194], [242], [279], [287], and [289] describe tracking a radiologist “cherry-picking” cases of specific modalities based on their preferred modality and type. Examiner notes that the claim does not limit either the scope of a “metric” or how the metric is generated beyond that it is “derived” from the distribution of tracked examinations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “metric” is not limited to a numerical representation, and “derived” only requires that the information be used in some fashion. If Applicant desires a more specific construction of these terms Examiner recommends amending the claims to more particularly recite both what constitutes a “metric” and how the metric is calculated using the distribution), and allocate examinations wherein the allocation is configured to increase the degree to which the tracked examinations for the at least one medical professional are distributed among the plurality of different examination types ([242], [279], and [289]-[293] describe identifying radiologists who have cherry-picked by not doing their share of undesirable modalities and forcibly assigning cases of the undesirable type to them, i.e. increasing the degree to which the examinations received by the radiologist are distributed across the examination modalities).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of image study routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bedi to derive a diversity metric from a distribution of tracked examinations across a plurality of different examination types, the diversity metric indicating a degree to which the tracked examinations for at least one medical professional are distributed among the plurality of different examination types, and allocate examinations wherein the allocation is configured to increase the degree to which the tracked examinations for the at least one medical professional are distributed among the plurality of different examination types as taught by Benjamin since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Bedi already discloses determining a distribution metric involving a distribution of examination having different types for a medical professional and using it to assign further examinations, and deriving the metric from the distribution and having the allocation increase the degree of distribution of tracked examination modalities as taught by Benjamin would serve those same functions in Bedi, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 14, Bedi/Benjamin teach the method of claim 13. Bedi further discloses:
wherein the examinations are radiology examinations, and the types of the examinations include examinations performed using differing imaging modalities ([12], [21], and [34]-[42] describe the studies as radiology studies corresponding to a plurality of different modalities).
With respect to claim 15, Bedi/Benjamin teach the method of claim 13. Bedi further discloses:
wherein the tracking further includes tracking completion times for performing or reviewing the examinations ([28], [34], and [42] describe tracking turn-around time for the studies), and further comprising:
calculating an efficiency metric for at least one medical professional of the plurality of medical professionals based on the tracked completion times for performing or reviewing the examinations ([28], [34], and [42] describe tracking and recording the turn-around time for the studies);
wherein the upcoming examinations are allocated among the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals further based on the efficiency metrics calculated for the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals ([28] and [42] describe assigning future studies based on both turn-around time and the other index scores);
but does not expressly disclose:
the efficiency metric calculated based on the time taken by the medical professional against corresponding expected completion times for performing or reviewing the examinations.
However, Benjamin teaches that it was old and well known in the art of medical case routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate an efficiency metric indicative of a time taken by the medical professional to perform or review an examination against an expected time to perform the examination ([144] and [266] describe calculating a metric based on a radiologist’s median turn-around time for cases based on the expected SLA times for the cases).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical case routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bedi and Benjamin to calculate an efficiency metric indicative of a time taken by the medical professional to perform or review an examination against an expected time to perform the examination as taught by Benjamin since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Bedi and Benjamin already discloses calculating an efficiency metric based on the time taken by a medial professional to perform or review an examination, and calculating the efficiency metric based on that value against an expected time to perform the examination as taught by Benjamin would perform that same function in the combination of Bedi and Benjamin, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 16, Bedi/Benjamin teach the method of claim 13. Bedi further discloses:
wherein the tracking further includes tracking completion times for performing or reviewing the examinations ([28], [34], and [42] describe tracking turn-around time for the studies), and further comprising:
calculating an efficiency metric for at least one medical professional of the plurality of medical professionals based on the examinations performed or reviewed by the medical professional ([28], [34], and [42] describe tracking and recording the turn-around time for the studies);
wherein the upcoming examinations are allocated among the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals further based on the efficiency metrics calculated for the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals ([28] and [42] describe assigning future studies based on both turn-around time and the other index scores);
but does not expressly disclose:
the efficiency metric being based on relative value unit (RVU) metrics assigned to the examinations.
However, Benjamin teaches that it was old and well known in the art of medical case routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate an efficiency metric based on relative value unit (RVU) metrics assigned to the examinations ([165] and [282] describe calculating a metric based on number of cases ready by a radiologist per unit time weighted by RVU as well as metrics representing the radiologist’s RVU accumulation over a period of time and compared to peers).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical case routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bedi and Benjamin to calculate an efficiency metric based on relative value unit (RVU) metrics assigned to the examinations as taught by Benjamin since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Bedi already discloses calculating an efficiency metric based on cases performed or reviewed, and calculating the efficiency metric based on relative value unit (RVU) metrics assigned to the examinations as taught by Benjamin would perform that same function in the combination of Bedi and Benjamin, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedi et al (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0018674) in view of Benjamin et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0265946) as applied to claims 5 and 16, and further in view of Park et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0049758).
With respect to claim 6, Bedi/Benjamin teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 5. Bedi further discloses:
wherein calculating one or more metrics based on the tracked examinations comprises:
calculating a cross-modality score based on one of a modality or examination type of a medical device used in the examination ([34]-[42] describe calculating index scores for each radiologist across different modalities);
but does not expressly disclose:
the cross-modality score being based on the efficiency metric relative to one of a modality or examination type of a medical device used in the examination.
However, Park teaches that it was old and well known in the art of medical case routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a cross-modality score based on an efficiency metric relative to one of a modality or examination type of a medical device used in an examination (Figure 2, [6], [26], [27], and [31] describe an imaging study routing system which identifies radiologists’ average reading times and RVU rate for each specific imaging modality).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical case routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bedi and Benjamin to determine a cross-modality score based on an efficiency metric relative to one of a modality or examination type of a medical device used in an examination as taught by Park since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Bedi and Benjamin already teaches both calculating a cross-modality score based on tracked examinations and calculating an efficiency metric, and calculating the cross-modality score based on the efficiency metric relative to one of a modality or examination type of a medical device used in the examination as taught by Park would perform that same function in Bedi and Benjamin, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claim 17 recites similar limitations to those recited in claim 6, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 6.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedi et al (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0018674) in view of Benjamin et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0265946) as applied to claims 1 and 13, and further in view of Park et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0049758).
With respect to claim 7, Bedi/Benjamin teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1. Bedi does not expressly disclose wherein the allocating of examinations comprises: applying a reinforcement learning model (RL) to analyze the calculated one or more metrics to allocate the examinations to corresponding medical professionals.
However, Park teaches that it was old and well known in the art of medical case routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a reinforcement learning model (RL) to analyze the calculated one or more metrics to allocate the examinations to corresponding medical professionals (Figure 6, [4]-[6], [27], [29], and [31] describe calculating metrics for radiologists based on assigned examinations and analyzing the metrics using a reinforcement learning model to assign additional examinations).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical case routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bedi and Benjamin to apply a reinforcement learning model (RL) to analyze the calculated one or more metrics to allocate the examinations to corresponding medical professionals as taught by Park since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Bedi and Benjamin already teaches calculating metrics for medical professionals as well as allocating examinations to the medical professionals, and allocating the examinations by applying a reinforcement learning model as taught by Park would perform that same function in the combination of Bedi and Benjamin, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claim 18 recites similar limitations to those recited in claim 7, and is rejected on the same grounds set out above with respect to claim 7.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedi et al (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0018674) in view of Benjamin et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0265946) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hader et al (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0093285).
With respect to claim 11, Bedi/Benjamin teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1. Bedi further discloses:
wherein the medical examinations comprise radiology examinations ([12], [17], [21], and [26] describe the medical examinations as being radiology studies);
but does not expressly disclose:
the plurality of medical professionals comprise remote experts providing remote assistance to imaging technologists performing the radiology examinations via an information technology (IT) infrastructure, and the method distributes assistance requests to the remote experts (RE).
However, Hader teaches that it was old and well known in the art of medical case routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of remote experts providing remote assistance to imaging technologists performing radiology examinations via an information technology infrastructure, and to distribute assistance requests to the remote experts ([65], [66], [73], [74], [78]-[82], and [113] describe a system for assigning remote experts to assist local operators during radiological imaging procedures via computer networks).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical case routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bedi and Benjamin to include a plurality of remote experts providing remote assistance to imaging technologists performing radiology examinations via an information technology infrastructure, and to distribute assistance requests to the remote experts as taught by Hader since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Bedi and Benjamin already teaches a plurality of medical professionals communicating via computer networks as well as radiology examinations, and including a plurality of remote experts providing remote assistance to imaging technologists performing radiology examinations via an information technology infrastructure, and distributing assistance requests to the remote experts as taught by Hader would perform that same function in the combination of Bedi and Benjamin, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
With respect to claim 12, Bedi/Benjamin/Hader teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11. Bedi does not expressly disclose wherein the tracking utilizes log data of the IT infrastructure via which the remote experts (RE) provide remote assistance to the imaging technologists performing the radiology examinations.
However, Hader teaches that it was old and well known in the art of medical case routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to track examinations utilizing log data of IT infrastructure via which the remote experts provide remote assistance to imaging technologists performing radiology examinations (Figure 3, [162], [163], [175], and [176] describe the computer system maintaining records of which expert operators were associated with particular examinations).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical case routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bedi, Benjamin, and Hader to track examinations utilizing log data of IT infrastructure via which the remote experts provide remote assistance to imaging technologists performing radiology examinations as taught by Hader since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Bedi, Bnejamin, and Hader already teach tracking examinations by medical professionals as well as remote experts providing remote assistance to imaging technologists, and tracking examinations utilizing log data of IT infrastructure via which the remote experts provide remote assistance to imaging technologists performing radiology examinations as taught by Hader would perform that same function in Bedi, Benjamin, and Hader, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedi et al (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0018674) in view of Benjamin et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0265946).
With respect to claim 20, Bedi discloses the claimed method of distributing medical examinations to medical professionals, the method comprising:
tracking examinations performed or reviewed by a plurality of medical professionals wherein the tracking includes tracking types of the examinations ([12], [34], [35], and [42] describe a radiology study assignment system tracking different study types and evaluating reports for studies performed by radiologists);
calculating an efficiency metric for each medical professional of the plurality of medical professionals based on tracked completion times for performing or reviewing the examinations ([28], [34], and [42] describe tracking and aggregating turn-around time for the studies, see [28] using a singular value for the radiologist’s turn-around time); and
allocating upcoming examinations among the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals based at least in part on the efficiency metrics calculated for the medical professionals of the plurality of medical professionals ([28] and [42] describe assigning future studies based on both turn-around time and the other index scores);
but does not expressly disclose:
tracking the completion times against corresponding expected completion times for performing or reviewing the examinations.
However, Benjamin teaches that it was old and well known in the art of medical case routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate an efficiency metric based on tracked completion times for performing or reviewing examinations against corresponding expected completion times for performing or reviewing the examinations and using the metric in future allocations ([143], [144], and [266] describe calculating a metric based on a radiologist’s median turn-around time for cases based on the expected SLA times for the cases and adjusting the cases available to the radiologist based on the metric).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical case routing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bedi to calculate an efficiency metric based on tracked completion times for performing or reviewing examinations against corresponding expected completion times for performing or reviewing the examinations and using the metric in future allocations as taught by Benjamin since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Bedi already discloses calculating an efficiency metric based on the time taken by a medial professional to perform or review an examination as well as using it to allocate examinations, and calculating the efficiency metric based on that value against an expected time to perform the examination as taught by Benjamin would perform that same function in Bedi, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claims not Rejected under 35 USC 102/103
Claims 8, 9, and 19 are not presently rejected under 35 USC 102/103 in view of the closest prior art of record as cited above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zonens et al (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0304877);
Brown et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0411170); and
Esposito et al (US Patent Application Publication 2010/0191540).
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 WILLIAM G LULTSCHIK whose telephone number is (571)272-3780. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/Gregory Lultschik/Examiner, Art Unit 3682