DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 03/27/2026.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 03/27/2026, with respect to the abstract of the disclosure have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 01/08/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided by the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-6 are directed to a methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; and Claims 7-12 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitation of “generating a communication message between the host system and the at least one processing device related to a sample processing order received in association in association with a sample, the message comprising one of at least two priorities (R) and (S) being indicative of respective sample processing priorities from lower priority (R) to higher priority (S) according to the received sample processing order”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of the mind. For example, a person can perform a mental evaluation of a received sample to associate a particular priority designation, with or without the use of pen and paper.
Further, the limitation of “changing the message … wherein changing the message comprises changing the lower priority identifier (R) to an identifier (CS), the identifier (CS) being indicative of a change of priority to the higher priority, and the identifier being different from an equivalent higher priority identifier (S), the identifier maintaining the sample and the sample processing order uniquely identifiable and traceable by both the host system and the at least one sample processing device”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of the mind. For example, a person can perform a mental judgement and evaluation that the priority of the sample is to be changed and associate the sample with a particular priority designation with indication of a change, with or without the use of pen and paper.
Therefore, Yes, claim 1 recites judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 1: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recited the following additional elements – “one sample processing device connected to a host system”, “the host system”, and “at least one sample processing device” which are recitations of generic computing components or other machinery merely as tools to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Further, the claim recites the following additional elements – “processing the sample by the at least one sample processing device according to the sample processing priority (S) or (R) in the message”, and “the sample processing device processing the sample as a higher priority sample instead of as a lower priority sample” which are recitations of mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The “processing” limitation is recited at a high level of generality and recites only the idea of an outcome. The claim does not specify how the sample processing device’s processing operation meaningfully changes when a sample is designated a priority. Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation covers any and all manners of processing a sample associated with a priority designation. The recited sample processing device is invoked merely as a tool performing in its ordinary capacity. Further still, the claim recites the following additional element – “identifying the sample by the at least one sample processing device” and “after transmission of the message and before the sample is processed, receiving a request for change of the sample processing priority for the sample from a lower priority to a higher priority” is merely recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity amounting to mere data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). This element will be further analyzed below at step 2B with regard to being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquiries set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and Prong 2, it has concluded that claims 1 not only recites a judicial exception by that the claim is directed to the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 1: The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components or other machinery as tools to apply the abstract idea and mere instructions to apply the abstract idea which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, the recitations of insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity as also Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions where they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., a t a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.” That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely transmit data which is Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional. Further still, the claim recites additional element of “identifying the sample by the at least one sample processing device” which is insignificant extra-solution activity amounting to mere data gathering which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(I) “2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” See MPEP § 2106.07 (a)(III) “(C) A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine conventional nature of the additional element(s). An appropriate publication could include a book, manual, review article, or other source that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry … The nature of the publication and the description of the additional elements in the publication would need to demonstrate that the additional elements are widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant field, compare to the types of activity or elements that are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a).” In a 2009 printed publication, “A New Specimen Management System Using RFID Technology”, Shim et al. (hereinafter Shim) discusses the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of sample identification: “Specimens are collected in proper specimen containers according to the requirements of laboratories and are labeled with the test and patient’s information … The barcode, which has the specimen and patient’s information for specimen management, has advantages in clinical laboratory data processing such as quickness in data input and output and the reduction of handwriting errors in transferring data exchanges” (Shim, Pg. 1403-1404). This establishes that the use of barcodes for specimen management and identification is a well-known technique for routing data in a laboratory processing system. Moreover, Shim emphasizes: “Likewise, the labeling was manually done but this process has now been computerized. These days, most hospitals use barcodes for specimen labeling and management or for hospital instrument logistics.” (Shim, Pg. 1404) which further supports that specimen labeling is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. That is, in the instant claim the limitation merely identifies a sample which is Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claim 1 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 2, the claim recites additional elements of “wherein the host system comprises a laboratory information system (LIS) and/or a hospital information system (HIS)” which is merely recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Claim 2 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 2 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 3, the claim recites additional elements of “wherein the message is in a health level seven international (HL7) or Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) format” which is merely recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Claim 3 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 3 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 4, the claim recites additional elements of “wherein changing the message comprises providing a user interface with an option to select the sample or a sample carrier to be processed with higher priority, and an option to select a change of priority command for the selected sample or sample carrier” which are merely recitations of generic computing components or other machinery to tools to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Claim 4 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 4 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 5, the claim recites additional abstract idea recitation of “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 such as to be distinguishable in a list of samples and/or of sample processing orders and/or sample processing results” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of the mind. For example, a person can mentally judge and mentally evaluate a sample associated with a change of priority, and, with or without the use of pen and paper, associate a highlight or marking with such sample. Claim 5 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 5 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 6, the claim recites additional elements of “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” which is merely recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Claim 6 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 6 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 7, the above analysis is incorporated herein by substantial similarity to claim 1 as it applies equally to claim 7. Claim 7 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 8, the above analysis is incorporated herein by substantial similarity to claim 2 as it applies equally to claim 8. Claim 8 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 9, the above analysis is incorporated herein by substantial similarity to claim 3 as it applies equally to claim 9. Claim 9 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 9 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 10, the above analysis is incorporated herein by substantial similarity to claim 4 as it applies equally to claim 10. Claim 10 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 11, the above analysis is incorporated herein by substantial similarity to claim 5 as it applies equally to claim 11. Claim 11 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 11 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 12, the above analysis is incorporated herein by substantial similarity to claim 6 as it applies equally to claim 12. Claim 12 does not recite any additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 12 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to a judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, Claims 1-12 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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) in view of Francois et al. Patent No. US 9,229,716 B2 (hereinafter Francois).
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) and (S) being indicative of respective sample processing priorities from lower priority (R) to higher priority (S) 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) or (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).) comprising:
after transmission of the message and before the sample is processed, receiving a request for change of sample processing priority for the sample from a lower priority to a higher priority (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)
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), … 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.) …
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.
However, Khafizova, Li, and Mahseh do not explicitly teach the change from a low priority to a change of priority identifier, and that it differs from the equivalent non-changed priority identifier.
Francois teaches wherein changing the message comprises changing (Col. 4, FIG. 2 is an embodiment of a data processing system 200 such as, but not limited to, client 110 and/or server 140 in which an embodiment of a task priority boost management system according to the present disclosure may be implemented; Col. 6, According to the present disclosure, a value is written to and/or stored in a boost register 362 to indicate a time a thread may remain in a priority boosted state (Examiner notes: A task structure maintaining a priority and “boost” change duration).) the lower priority identifier (R) to an identifier (CS) (Col. 8, In some embodiments, the instruction that a thread uses/executes to boost or unboost its priority may comprise a variation of a no-op instruction … For example, values of “X” from 0 to 2 could be defined as low-priority, a value of 3 could be defined as normal priority, and value greater than 3 could be defined as high priority.), the identifier (CS) being indicative of a change of priority, and the identifier being different from an equivalent higher priority identifier (S) (Col. 8, When the thread is eligible for boosted priority (e.g., a non-zero value resides in boost register 362) and the thread executes the instruction with “X” greater than 3, the thread’s priority is corresponding boosted (Examiner notes: a new priority identifier is “boosted” alongside the corresponding boost structure indicating the change, thus differing from the same priority without the corresponding boost identifier), the identifier maintaining the sample … uniquely identifiable and traceable (Col. 7, If the thread unboosts its priority before the value in boost register 362 decrements to zero, the remaining processor cycles that the thread may have allocated to a boosted priority is saved on a context switch as thread state data.)
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 Francois with the teachings of Khafizova, Li, and Mahseh in order to provide a method that teaches a task structure that maintains a priority and priority “boost” register. The motivation for applying Francois teaching with Khafizova, Li, and Mahseh teaching is to provide a method that allows for a structure that provides change in priority functionality such that enables distinguishment from promoted tasks from native tasks to improve scheduling and organization of execution of a collection of tasks (Francois, Col. 7). Khafizova, Li, and Mahseh and Francois are analogous art directed towards allocation of resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Francois with Khafizova, Li, and Mahseh to teach the claimed invention in order to provide task change priority structure and identifier.
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, Li, and Francois in order to provide a method that teaches a host system comprising a hospital information system. The motivation for applying Mahesh teaching with Khafizova, Li, and Francois 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, Li, Francois 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, Li, and Francois to teach the claimed invention in order to provide priority dynamic scheduling in a hospital information system.
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, Li, and Francois that enables reprioritization of workflow items to accommodate changes in patient acuity, as presented in claim 1.
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 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 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 in view of Francois 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, Mahesh, and Francois 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, Mahesh, and Francois 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, Mahesh, and Francois 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, Mahesh, and Francois 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 in view of Francois 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, Li, Mahesh, and Francois 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, Li, Mahesh, and Francois 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, Li, Mahesh, Francois 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, Li, Mahesh, and Francois 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, Li, Mahesh, and Francois 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, Li, Mahesh, and Francois 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, Li, Mahesh, and Francois 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, Li, Mahesh, and Francois 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights