DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 07/27/2023.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of undue length. Applicant is reminded that the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khafizova Patent No. Us 9,235,645 B1 (hereinafter Khafizova) in view of Li et al. "The medical laboratory scheduling for weighted flow-time" (hereinafter Li) in view of Mahesh et al. Pub. No. US 2007/0185730 A1 (hereinafter Mahesh).
With regard to claim 1, Khafizova teaches a computer implemented method of managing sample [job] processing priorities in a diagnostic laboratory comprising at least one sample [job] processing device connected to a host system, the method comprising (Col. 1, The illustrative embodiments described herein are directed to a data processing system and, in particular, to systems and methods for managing the execution of processing jobs. In one embodiment, a method includes receiving a processing job associated with a set of processing job parameters):
generating a communication message between the host system and the at least one sample [job] processing device related to a sample [job] processing order received in association with a sample [job] (Col. 3, With particular reference to FIG. 2, an illustrative embodiment of the interaction between the components of FIG. 1 is shown in which the user interfacing devices 102 (e.g., the desktop computer 112) send the processing job 111 and associated processing job parameters to the request processing server 110 (data communication 118). Processing job parameters include any data describing, or otherwise associated, with the processing job 111.), the message comprising one of at least two priority identifiers (R, S) indicative of respective sample processing priorities from lower priority to higher priority according to received sample processing order (Col. 3-Col. 4, In process 122, the request processing server 110 may prioritize the pending processing jobs using the respective processing job priorities of the pending processing jobs. For example, pending processing jobs with the highest processing job priorities may be scheduled to be executed first in the execution order, while pending processing jobs with the lowest processing job priorities may be scheduled to be executed last in the execution order; Col. 6, The processing job parameters 246 may also include, or otherwise indicate, the urgency of the processing job 211. The urgency may be selected by the user 254, or may be pre-defined based on another processing job parameter or user parameter (Examiner notes: Job priority is specified by the message request),
identifying the sample [job] by the at least one sample [job] processing device (Col. 6, The processing job parameters 246 may indicate a type of processing device on which the processing job 211 should be executed, such as a computer type, processor, type, server type, etc.) and processing the sample [job] by the at least one sample [job] processing device according to the sample [job] processing priority (S, R) in the message (Col. 4, In one embodiment, after identifying the third processing device 108 as the destination processing device, the request processing server 110 sends the processing job 111 to the third processing device 108 for execution (Data communication 126) … The third processing device 108 then processes the data sent form the request processing server 110 (process 127).) characterized in that,
in case of receiving a subsequent request for change of sample processing priority for the sample from a lower priority to a higher priority after transmission of the message and before the sample is processed, the method comprises changing the message and processing the sample as a higher priority sample instead of as a lower priority identifier (Col. 8, The prioritization engine 275 may also assign a weight W to each of the processing job parameters 246 and the user parameters 248. The weight W may be used to determine that impact that each of the processing job parameters 246 and the user parameters 248 will have on the processing job priority 276. For example, the higher the weight W is for a particular processing job or user parameter, the more that processing job or user parameter will cause the processing job priority 276 to have a higher value; Col. 8, In another embodiment, the weights W of one or more of the processing job parameters 246 or the user parameters 248 may be dynamically adjusted in real time to reflect current circumstances (Examiner notes: Such that the change in priority occurs prior to processing), … and the sample [job] processing order uniquely identifiable and traceable by both the host system and the at least one sample processing device (Col. 10, In one embodiment, the data for the pending and prioritized processing jobs 279, such as the data in the table 278, may be retrieved using a unique identifier UI for the user 254 … When finding processing jobs initiated by the user 254, the prioritization engine 275 may search for the pending and prioritized processing jobs 279 using the user’s unique identifier UI, which may be included with, or otherwise associated with, each of the pending and prioritized processing jobs 279).
Khafizova teaches, at a high level, managing and scheduling job processes on job processing devices but, however, does not explicitly teach samples, sample processing, sample processing devices in a diagnostics laboratory.
Li teaches samples, sample processing, sample processing devices in a diagnostics laboratory (Abstract, This paper studies an on-line scheduling in medical laboratory. The sample of a patient is regarded as a job waiting to be scheduled, and each analyzer is a machine that may analyze several samples simultaneously as a batch. The samples arrive over time, and information of each sample is not released until the sample arrives. Each sample is given a weight in a known range to represent its importance or urgency. Thus the medical laboratory scheduling can be described as a parallel-batch on-line scheduling problem; Pg. 84, In this paper, on-line means that jobs (samples) are released over time and the information of each job, such as the release time and weight, is unknown until it is released)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Li with the teachings of Khafizova in order to provide a method that teaches scheduling of patient samples on analyzer devices in a medical laboratory environment. The motivation for applying Li teaching with Khafizova teaching is to provide a method that applies the known technique of scheduling processing jobs with associated priorities to patient sample work items order to produce a desired result. As such the modification would have been motivated by the desire of combining general scheduling concepts to the processing of patient samples of a medical laboratory environment to yield predictable results. Khafizova and Li are analogous art directed towards allocation of resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Li with Khafizova to teach the claimed invention in order to provide a general scheduling framework to a laboratory environment.
Khafizova teaches, at a high level, managing priorities of job process but, however, does not explicitly teach the priority identifiers as (R, S) and changing priority identifiers.
Mahesh teaches the message comprising one of at least two priority identifiers (R, S) ([0036], In an embodiment, the exam entry module 220 is adapter to allow a priority level to be selected. IN an embodiment, the priority level may be selected at least in part by a user. The priority level may be selected by a user using the exam entry module 220, for example …. The priority levels may include “normal” and “stat” … A “normal” priority level may be used for a routine exam, for example.) … wherein changing the message comprises changing the lower priority identifier (R) to an identifier (CS) indicative of a change of priority but different from an equivalent higher priority identifier (S) in order to maintain the sample ([0044], In an embodiment, the radiologist worklist 240 is capable of dynamically adjusting the value of the priority indicator. In an embodiment, the radiologist worklist 20 allows for a user to dynamically adjust the value of the priority indicator. That is the radiologist worklist 240 allows a user to change the value of the priority indicator after it has been set. For example, a radiologist may be reading an exam originally assigned a “normal” priority. The radiologist may determine that the patient is more critical than initially thought, and may adjust the priority indicator associated with the exam to have a value of “stat” priority; [0047], In certain embodiments, a change in the priority indicator associated with the exam may trigger a notification. The notification may be initiated because a priority indicator associated with an exam exceeded a threshold value, for example (Examiner notes: Such that the notification is an identifier indicative of a change of priority and differs from an equivalent high priority identifier)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Mahesh with the teachings of Khafizova and Li in order to provide a method that teaches priority identifiers and a method for changing such priority identifiers associated with a sample. The motivation for applying Mahesh teaching with Khafizova and Li teaching is to provide a method that allows for dynamic priority adjustment of scheduled job items such that enables reprioritization of workflow items to accommodate changes in patient acuity (Mahesh, [0021]). Khafizova and Li and Mahesh are analogous art directed towards allocation of resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Mahesh with Khafizova and Li to teach the claimed invention in order to provide dynamic adjustment of priority associated with samples.
With regard to claim 7, Khafizova teaches a system for managing sample processing priorities in a diagnostic laboratory comprising at least one sample processing device connected to a host system (Col. 1, The illustrative embodiments described herein are directed to a data processing system and, in particular, systems and method for managing the execution of processing jobs; Col. 2, In another embodiment, a data processing system includes a bus system and a memory connected to the bus system. The memory includes a set of instructions. The data processing system includes a processing unit connected to the bus system)
In addition, Li teaches samples, sample processing, sample processing priorities in a diagnostics laboratory (Abstract, This paper studies an on-line scheduling in medical laboratory. The sample of a patient is regarded as a job waiting to be scheduled, and each analyzer is a machine that may analyze several samples simultaneously as a batch. The samples arrive over time, and information of each sample is not released until the sample arrives. Each sample is given a weight in a known range to represent its importance or urgency. Thus the medical laboratory scheduling can be described as a parallel-batch on-line scheduling problem; Pg. 84, In this paper, on-line means that jobs (samples) are released over time and the information of each job, such as the release time and weight, is unknown until it is released)
Claim 7 is a system claim having similar limitations to claim 1. Thus, claim 7 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 1.
With regard to claim 2, Mahesh teaches wherein the host system comprises a laboratory information system (LIS) and/or a hospital information system (HIS) ([0003], Healthcare environments, such as hospitals or clinics, include information systems such as clinical information systems and storage systems. Clinical information systems may include, for example, hospital information systems (HIS) and radiology Information Systems (RIS). Storage systems may include, for example, picture archiving and communication systems (PACS). Information stored may include patient medical histories, imaging data, test results, diagnosis information, management information, and/or scheduling information, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Mahesh with the teachings of Khafizova and Li in order to provide a method that teaches a host system comprising a hospital information system. The motivation for applying Mahesh teaching with Khafizova and Li teaching is to provide a method that allows for utilization of a system that is best suited for a healthcare environment such that enables the streamlining of healthcare operations, facilitating distributed remote examination and diagnosis, and improving patient care (Mahesh, [0006]). Khafizova and Li and Mahesh are analogous art directed towards allocation of resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Mahesh with Khafizova and Li to teach the claimed invention in order to provide priority dynamic scheduling in a hospital information system.
With regard to claim 8, it is a system claim having similar limitations to claim 2. Thus, claim 8 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 2.
With regard to claim 6, Mahesh teaches wherein a change of sample processing priority is allowed only for routine samples resulting in a change from a routine sample with lower priority to a short-turnaround-time (STAT) sample with higher priority, regardless of type of sample carrier ([0011], There is a need for workflow enhancements that allow for a health care provider to attend to more acute cases first; [0012], The technologist may determine that the patient is more critical than initially thought, but has no way to escalate the priority of the exam for reading by a radiologist, for example. Thus, there exists a need for a system and method for dynamic exam priority; [0044], In an embodiment, the radiologist worklist 240 is capable of dynamically adjusting the value of the priority indicator. In an embodiment, the radiologist worklist 20 allows for a user to dynamically adjust the value of the priority indicator. That is the radiologist worklist 240 allows a user to change the value of the priority indicator after it has been set. For example, a radiologist may be reading an exam originally assigned a “normal” priority. The radiologist may determine that the patient is more critical than initially thought, and may adjust the priority indicator associated with the exam to have a value of “stat” priority (Examiner notes: Where priority adjustments are made particularly associated with escalating patient status).
Rationale to claim 1 applied here.
Examiner notes: It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the change of sample processing priority is associated with strictly increasing the priority as a patient’s condition worsens, thus invoking the motivation of the combination of Mahesh with Khafizova and Li that enables reprioritization of workflow items to accommodate changes in patient acuity, as presented in claim 1.
With regard to claim 12, it is a system claim having similar limitations to claim 6. Thus, claim 12 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 6.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khafizova in view of Li in view of Mahesh as applied to claims 1, 7 above, and further in view of McDonald “Standards for the Electronic of Clinical Data: Progress, Promises, and the Conductor’s Wand” (hereinafter McDonald).
McDonald was cited in the IDS filed 07/27/2023.
With regard to claim 3, McDonald teaches wherein the message is in a health level seven international (HL7) or Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) format (Pg. 13, Health Level 7 (HL7) is a consortium of vendors, users, and consultants, who are developing interchange standards for all of the transactions that occurring in a large medical institution. They include admission-discharge-transfer, order entry, result reporting, billing, etc., in their scope. HL7 has been very successful in recruiting information system vendors to the effort, and more than 40 sites are now implementing the HL7 standard., HL7 and ASTM E31.11 are closely allied and coordinated. The two groups have the same philosophy, message structure, and data types).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of McDonald with the teachings of Khafizova, Li, and Mahesh in order to provide a method that teaches a message comprising the health level seven international (HL7) communication framework. The motivation for applying McDonald teaching with Khafizova, Li, and Mahesh teaching is to provide a method that allows for the known methods of composing and routing HL7 communication messages with scheduling in a healthcare environment to yield predictable results. Khafizova, Li, and Mahesh and McDonald are analogous art directed towards allocation of resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine McDonald with Khafizova, Li, and Mahesh to teach the claimed invention in order to provide a communication framework for transmitting and receiving messages in a healthcare environment.
With regard to claim 9, it is a system claim having similar limitations to claim 3. Thus, claim 9 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 3.
Claims 4, 5, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khafizova in view of Li in view of Mahesh as applied to claims 1, 7 above, and further in view of “Tivoli Workload Scheduler User’s Guide” (hereinafter Tivoli).
With regard to claim 4, Khafizova teaches wherein changing the message comprises providing a user interface (Col. 11, The position of the processing job 211 in the execution order or queue may be displayed to the user 254 using a prompt on the graphic user interface 256)
However, Khafizova does not explicitly teach an option to select or change priority of a scheduled job.
Tivoli teaches an option to select the sample or a sample carrier to be processed with higher priority (Pg. 313, Changing the Priority of a Job Stream Instance … Run a list of job stream instances that contains the job stream instance you want to modify … In the list results, right-click the job stream instance you want to modify or, to select more than one job stream instance; Pg. 314, High Sets the priority to 100, Go sets the priority to 101 (Examiner notes: such that the job can be processed with higher priority), and an option to select a change of priority command for the selected sample or sample carrier (Pg. 314, Select Priority… from the pop-up menu. This displays the Change Priority – Job Stream Instance Window … Select a new priority value from the drop-down list; Fig. 92. Change Priority – Job Stream Instance window).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Tivoli with the teachings of Khafizova and Li and Mahesh in order to provide a method that teaches a user interface to change the priority of a job. The motivation for applying Tivoli teaching with Khafizova and Li and Mahesh teaching is to provide a method that allows for a user interface for dynamically changing job priority, as such priority-adjustment techniques were well known and yield predictable results. Khafizova and Li and Mahesh and Tivoli are analogous art directed towards task dispatching strategies. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Tivoli with Khafizova and Li and Mahesh to teach the claimed invention in order to provide a user interface to dynamically adjust jobs to perform with higher priorities.
With regard to claim 5, Tivoli teaches comprising highlighting or marking the selected sample and/or sample processing order and/or sample processing result related to the selected sample in the user interface after a change of priority (Pg. 24, An auditing option has been implemented to track changes to the database and the plan … For the database, all user modifications are logged. However, the delta of the modification, or before image and after image, will not be logged. If an object is opened and saved, the action will be logged even if no modification has been done … For the plan, all user modifications to the plan are logged. Actions are logged whether they are successful or not) such as to be distinguishable in a list of samples and/or of sample processing orders and/or sample processing results (Pg. 24, Audit files are logged to a flat text file on individual machines in the TWS network. This minimizes the risk of audit failure due to network issues and enables a straight forward approach to writing the log. The log formats are the same for both plan and database in a general sense. The logs consist of a header portion which is the same for all records, an action ID, and a section of data which will vary according to the action type (Examiner notes: such that the audit log maintains a list of distinguishable priority changes events associated with a job).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Tivoli with the teachings of Khafizova and Li and Mahesh in order to provide a method that teaches marking job changes through audit tracking in a database and workflow plan. The motivation for applying Tivoli teaching with Khafizova and Li and Mahesh teaching is to provide a method that applies the known technique of audit marking a selected job after an action for improving similar workflow and scheduling systems, in order to organize and distinguish modified jobs from unmodified jobs in the same manner. Such techniques are routinely used to improve traceability and visibility in comparable scheduling methods and apparatuses. Khafizova and Li and Mahesh and Tivoli are analogous art directed towards task dispatching strategies. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Tivoli with Khafizova and Li and Mahesh to teach the claimed invention in order to provide job audit marking to improve organization and visibility of changes.
With regard to claim 10, it is a system claim having similar limitations to claim 4. Thus, claim 10 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 4.
With regard to claim 11, it is a system claim having similar limitations to claim 5. Thus, claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IVAN A CASTANEDA whose telephone number is (571)272-0465. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-5:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/I.A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195