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 7/1/2026. Claims 1, 4-6, 13, and 20 have been amended. Claims 9 and 19 have been canceled Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 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 argues starting on page 8 of the response that “elements of claim 1 do recite a personal behavior or a relationship or interaction between people… Rather, elements of claim 1 recite tracking medical examinations and their modalities in an automated computer-based allocation workflow to attain a optimal balanced assignment and distribution of medical examinations of different modalities among medical professionals.” Applicant further asserts that Examiner “appears to conclude that entire elements of claim 1 constitute certain methods of organizing human activities, without consideration of individual parts and context of the elements related to such tracking of the examinations and their modalities and optimally balancing of the assignment and distribution of the examinations of different modalities among medical professionals” and that “it not proper to simply disregard the parts and context of the claim elements that indicate such improvements to a medical examination workflow.” Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above assertions.
Initially, and with respect to Applicant’s assertion that the claims do not recite a method of organizing activity on the basis that they recite “tracking medical examinations and their modalities in an automated computer-based allocation workflow to attain a optimal balanced assignment and distribution of medical examinations of different modalities among medical professionals” (emphasis added), Examiner maintains that the recitation of computing devices used to perform functions within the abstract idea does not preclude a claim from reciting elements which fall within the scope of a method of organizing human activity. The elements related to tracking medical examinations and their modalities in an allocation workflow “to attain a optimal balanced assignment and distribution of medical examinations of different modalities among medical professionals” fall within the scope of the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Examiner further respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that the rejection fails to consider “individual parts and context of the elements related to such tracking of the examinations and their modalities and optimally balancing of the assignment and distribution of the examinations of different modalities among medical professionals.” The elements related to tracking the examinations and modalities, as well as balancing of their assignment and distribution, are expressly listed and considered in the analysis provided in Step 2A Prong 1. Applicant does not further elaborate on or explain the “context” being argued, or how such context would affect the analysis. Examiner maintains that each element has been considered in its context within the claim as a whole, and that none of the recited elements have been “disregarded” as argued.
Likewise, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that “[i]t would be unreasonably broad to simply conclude that these added elements of amended claim 1 are abstract ideas, without consideration of the full context of these additional elements with respect to tracking and optimal balancing of the examinations for improved examination workflow.” The newly added elements in claim 1 are construed as falling within the scope of the abstract idea because they could be performed by an individual as part of assigning the imaging examinations to medical professionals as set out in further detail in Step 2A Prong 1. This construction does not require disregarding portions of the claim or additional elements.
Applicant further argues starting on page 10 that the newly added limitations in claim 1 integrate the claim into a practical application. Applicant asserts that the newly added limitations “include additional context related to tracking and optimally balancing of medical examinations that need to be further considered as part of the analysis framework,” and that “[a]ccordingly, these elements of claim 1 should be analyzed as "additional limitations" under this second prong of step 2A.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner maintains that the argued limitations are properly construed as falling within the scope of the abstract idea given that the recited abstract method of organizing human activity encompasses the process of an individual allocating examinations to medical professionals based on the distribution of types of examinations previously reviewed by different medical professionals. Tracking modalities of the examinations and allocating upcoming examinations based on the tracked examination modalities, including by “re-assigning an upcoming examination having a modality in which a first medical professional satisfies a predetermined modality metric from the first medical professional to a second medical professional who does not satisfy the predetermined modality metric” are elements which would be performed by the individual(s) allocating the examinations, and therefore are construed as within the scope of the abstract idea.
These limitations do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, both because they fall entirely within the scope of the abstract idea and because their performance does not constitute an improvement to a “technical field.” The use of technology in a field, such as the review or performance of medical imaging examinations, does not establish that all activity related to that field constitutes a “technical field” for purposes of Step 2A Prong 2. Here, Applicant asserts that the claims provide an improvement by “providing an improved medical examination workflow that tracks medical examinations and their modalities and optimally balances the assignment and distribution of the medical examinations of different modalities among medical professionals.” The assignment and distribution of medical examinations of different modalities among medical professionals is not itself a technology, but rather an activity traditionally performed by humans. An asserted improvement that results from limitations falling entirely within the scope of an abstract idea is not sufficient to integrate a claim into a practical application.
Applicant lastly argues starting on page 12 that the claims recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than any abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant asserts that claim 1 “contributes an inventive concept that improves the field of medical imaging examination” on the basis that “the additional limitations of claim 1 provide an improved medical examination workflow that tracks medical examinations and their modalities and optimally balances the assignment and distribution of the medical examinations of different modalities among medical professionals, such that the medical professionals gain expertise in a range of different modalities.” As addressed above, Examiner maintains that the elements cited by Applicant do not constitute additional elements, and instead fall entirely within the scope of the abstract idea. As stated in MPEP 2106.05, “[a]n inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."” The additional elements recited in claim 1 are a non-transitory computer readable medium recited as storing instructions, and a processor recited as executing the instructions and performing the subsequent functions. Each of these elements is recited at a high level of generality in the context of each of these functions and is disclosed as encompassing generic forms of computing elements. The use of a processor at a high level to implement data processing functions does not amount to more than well-understood routine and conventional activity even when viewed in the context of the present claims as a whole
The rejection of claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
B. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn.
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 and tracking the examinations includes tracking examination modalities of the examinations;
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
wherein, to attain an optimal balance of the different examination modalities, the allocation of the one or more upcoming examinations includes, based on the tracked examination modalities of the tracked examinations, re-assigning an upcoming examination having a modality in which a first medical professional satisfies a predetermined modality metric from the first medical professional to a second medical professional who does not satisfy the predetermined modality metric.
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. Assigning imaging examinations to medical professionals is a routine function performed by healthcare facility staff. Assigning examinations according to the steps above could be performed by a medical administrator or other individual as part of medical examination workflows at a healthcare facility, and amounts to managing the behavior of that individual and/or interactions between that individual and the medical professionals.
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 and modalities 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,
wherein, to attain an optimal balance of the different examination modalities, the allocation of the one or more upcoming examinations includes, based on the tracked examination modalities of the tracked examinations, re-assigning an upcoming examination having a modality in which a first medical professional satisfies a predetermined modality metric from the first medical professional to a second medical professional who does not satisfy the predetermined modality metric.
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. Assigning imaging examinations to medical professionals is a routine function performed by healthcare facility staff. Assigning examinations according to the steps above could be performed by a medical administrator or other individual as part of medical examination workflows at a healthcare facility, and amounts to managing the behavior of that individual and/or interactions between that individual and the medical professionals.
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 and modalities 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,
wherein, to attain an optimal balance of the different examination modalities, the allocation of the one or more upcoming examinations includes, based on the tracked examination modalities of the tracked examinations, re-assigning an upcoming examination having a modality in which a first medical professional satisfies a predetermined modality metric from the first medical professional to a second medical professional who does not satisfy the predetermined modality metric.
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. Assigning imaging examinations to medical professionals is a routine function performed by healthcare facility staff. Assigning examinations according to the steps above could be performed by a medical administrator or other individual as part of medical examination workflows at a healthcare facility, and amounts to managing the behavior of that individual and/or interactions between that individual and the medical professionals.
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 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.
Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 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 6 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn based on the amendment filed 7/1/2026.
Claims not Rejected under 35 USC 102/103
Claims 1-20 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
Prosecution Insights