DETAILED ACTION
Notices to Applicant
This communication is a final rejection. Claims 1-2 and 4-21, as filed 09/12/2025, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority is generally acknowledged as shown on the filing receipt with the earliest priority date being 08/18/2022 .
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon and the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same under either status.
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 1-2 and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process, machine, and/or article of manufacture which recite:
1. A computer-implemented method for providing a set of control commands for controlling a medical imaging system in a medical facility, the computer-implemented method comprising:
providing a database storing at least one set of control commands for controlling medical imaging systems when performing medical imaging procedures;
acquiring, by a remote access facility, a request from the medical facility for the performance of a medical imaging procedure with the medical imaging system, wherein said request includes target procedure information describing the medical imaging procedure to be performed; and
querying, by the remote access facility based on the target procedure information, whether the medical imaging procedure to be performed can be performed with a set of control commands stored in the database;
providing, by the remote access facility, the set of control commands to the medical facility in response to determining that the medical imagining procedure can be performed with the set of commands; and
in response to determining that the medical imaging procedure cannot be performed with the at least one set of control commands stored in the database,
assigning a remote operator in the remote access facility for remote control of the medical imaging procedure to be performed by the remote operator,
acquiring a set of remote control commands input to the remote access facility by the remote operator for the performance of the medical imaging procedure to be performed, and
providing, by the remote access facility, the set of remote control commands.
Claim 1 is presented as an exemplary claim but the same analysis applies to claims 13 and 14.
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes certain methods of organizing human activity because the italicized portions are analogous to a manual process where a supervisor technician monitors a junior technician performing an imaging exam, determines an appropriate protocol for a given imaging exam, instructs the junior technician on the steps to perform the exam where the senior technician determines this feasible, or performing the exam himself when he determines that it is not feasible for the junior to perform it. For example, but for the “by the remote access facility” language, acquiring a request from the medical facility for the performance of a medical imaging procedure with the medical imaging system in the context of this claim is analogous to steps a human would perform such as listening when a patient or provider requests an imaging exam. Additionally, determining whether an imaging procedure can be performed mentally is a mental process that a senior technician could perform mentally.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims. For example, claims 5, 9, 11, and 17 add further abstract ideas consistent with the method of organizing human activity described with respect to claim 1 and further abstract ideas such as ascertaining a quality measure in claim 5 and determining an efficiency value in claim 9 which are mental processes because they can practicably be performed in the human mind by, for example, a supervisor imaging technician.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, by a remote access facility amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see applicant’s specification [0167], see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use such as generally stating the imaging device modality in claims 18 and 19, see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. For example, claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 12, 15-16, and 20 recites additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii), electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii), and/or storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferro (USP App. Pub. No. 2014/0003577) in view of Raman (USP App. Pub. No. 2021/0193331).
Regarding claim 1, Ferro discloses: A computer-implemented method for providing a set of control commands for controlling a medical imaging system in a medical facility (“the invention provides a modularly deployable diagnostic imaging kiosk that allows patients in impoverished, remote, or underdeveloped locations to receive professionally supervised diagnostic imaging procedures,” [0025]), the computer-implemented method comprising:
--providing a database storing at least one set of control commands for controlling medical imaging systems when performing medical imaging procedures (“prepared scripts related to diagnostic imaging procedures,” [0072]);
--acquiring, by a remote access facility, a request from the medical facility for the performance of a medical imaging procedure with the medical imaging system, wherein said request includes target procedure information describing the medical imaging procedure to be performed (patient specifying which imaging procedure as part of scheduling process in [0051]; “The patient is then presented with instructions related to the diagnostic imaging procedure (step 520). For example, the instructions that are presented are based on one or more diagnostic imaging procedure instruction signals received from the remote technician's workstation,” [0054]);
--providing, by the remote access facility, the set of control commands to the medical facility [in response to determining that the medical imaging procedure can be performed with the set of control commands] (scripted instructions and manual remote configuration for a particular imaging exam in [0074]-[0078]).
--assigning a remote operator in the remote access facility for remote control of the medical imaging procedure to be performed by the remote operator (when the remote technician's workspace is available, the workstation is placed in a queue of workstations to await a call from a kiosk.),
--acquiring a set of remote control commands input to the remote access facility by the remote operator for the performance of the medical imaging procedure to be performed (technician inputs settings such as pan/tilt in FIG. 15 and other commands in the column under 1210 in FIG. 16), and
--providing, by the remote access facility, the set of remote control commands input to the remote access facility as the set of control commands to the medical facility (adjusting imaging modality based on presets, zoom, and brightness in FIG. 15; executing imaging commands via button 1105 in FIG. 15; ).
Ferro does not expressly disclose but Raman teaches: wherein the providing of the set of control commands includes:
--querying, by the remote access facility based on the target procedure information, whether the medical imaging procedure to be performed can be performed with a set of control commands stored in the database (830 and 835 in FIG. 8 show the system querying whether a particular protocol is appropriate to perform the imaging procedure);
--in response to determining that the medical imaging procedure can be performed, providing the stored at least one set of control commands as the set of control commands to the medical facility (Yes at 835 ultimately leads to Execute scan session 850 in FIG. 8); and
--in response to determining that the medical imaging procedure cannot be performed with the at least one set of control commands stored in the database, (No at 835 leads to manual user input of protocol in FIG. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the remote control imaging workflows in an imaging Kiosk as taught by Ferro to include the branching logic depending on whether the study can be performed automatically or not as taught by Raman because automating exams where possible while allowing for manual examination where needed would improve the efficiency of the system and imaging quality (Raman [0049]).
Regarding claim 2, Ferro discloses: wherein the database is arranged in the remote access facility (“variety of prepared scripts related to diagnostic imaging procedures,” [0072]).
Regarding claim 4, Ferro further discloses: wherein the set of remote control commands induce, in the medical facility, at least one of at least one visual-based instruction or at least one audio-based instruction for an operator for the performance the medical imaging procedure to be performed (“The instructions are presented by an avatar representing the remote technician and include combinations of audio, pictures, video, and the like. For example, instructions include the remote technician providing voice instructions, an image of the position where the patient should be standing, and a video or animation of the patient moving into the correct position,” [0054]); and
--the computer-implemented method further includes logging at least one operator action performed by the operator based on the set of remote control commands, on the medical imaging system, determining, by the remote access facility, at least one further set of control commands based on the at least one operator action, and storing, by the remote access facility, the at least one further set of control commands in the database (“The sounds, images, and videos that are displayed to the patient on the internal display 315A are controlled by the remote technician over the network. In some embodiments, the kiosk 65 includes footprints on the floor of the kiosk 65 to assist the patient in identifying the correct location to stand. The remote technician uses the first and second cameras to view the kiosk 65 and ensure that the patient is properly positioned. In some embodiments, the viewing directions of the first and second cameras are substantially orthogonal to one another to provide the remote technician with multiple vantage points from which to view the patient and ensure proper positioning,” [0054]).
Regarding claim 5, Ferro further discloses: ascertaining a quality measure of the at least one operator action by the remote access facility, wherein the determining and the storing of the at least one further set of control commands are based on the ascertaining (“If the diagnostic image is of insufficient quality, the process 500 returns to step 535 and a new diagnostic image is captured. Once a diagnostic image of sufficient quality has been captured, the process 500 proceeds to section A shown in and described with respect to FIG. 8,” [0055]).
Regarding claim 7, Ferro discloses: receiving a medical image data set as an outcome of the medical imaging procedure; and adapting the set of control commands provided to the medical facility based on the medical image data set (the technician at the remote facility receives the images as shown in camera views #1 and #2 in FIG. 15 and then adapts the imaging unit based thereon as described in [0077]-[0078]).
Regarding claim 10, Ferro does not expressly disclose but Raman teaches: wherein the database is arranged in the medical facility and stores sets of control commands specific to the medical facility (“can protocols specific to imaging modalities at a given medical facility (e.g., hospital),” [0052]; “In additional or alternative embodiments, the selection counts may be specific to a patient, a subset of similar patients, or a medical facility, such that the intelligent automated protocoling system may generate customized protocol recommendations,” [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the medical facility specific control commands of Raman within the remote imaging kiosk of Ferro because this would improve the efficiency of the system and imaging quality by making protocols more narrowly-tailored to the machine and facility (Raman [0049]).
Regarding claim 11, Ferro discloses: wherein the target procedure information includes one or more of: an element specifying a body part of a patient to be mapped with the medical imaging procedure; an element specifying a diagnostic context of the medical imaging procedure, an element specifying different individual procedure steps to be performed within the medical imaging procedure, an element specifying the medical imaging system to be used within the medical imaging procedure, or an element specifying a complexity level of at least one of the medical imaging procedure or individual procedure steps of the medical imaging procedure (patient indicating which diagnostic imagine procedure to conduct and schedule in [0051]).
Regarding claim 12, Ferro discloses: wherein the medical imaging system includes one or more of: a medical imaging device; a radiology information system; a picture archiving and communication system; a treatment scheduling system; a patient positioning system, or an injection device for substance administration to a patient (FIG. 5; “. The kiosk includes a first housing module and a second housing module. The first housing module is configured to house, among other things, a diagnostic imaging system (e.g., an X-ray system). The second housing module is configured to house electronics associated with the operation, control, and networking of the kiosk. The electronics include, for example, a primary controller, an X-ray controller, an X-ray generator, an internal display controller, an external display controller, a router, and a digital radiology (“DR”) module,” [0005]).
Claims 13 and 14 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected with the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 15, Ferro discloses: wherein the database is arranged outside the medical facility (wide area networks in [0028] and [0030]; “The kiosk is also configured to connect to one or more local, regional, national, or international health information networks or databases where patient data and test results are capable of being stored and accessed. For example, by connecting to the health information networks or databases, the kiosk is able to authenticate the identity of a patient, validate the patient's use of the kiosk, and control payments for the diagnostic imaging procedures. The kiosk's connections to the health information networks or databases also enable medical information to be displayed and medical records to be updated and transmitted using various forms of media,” [0025]).
Regarding claim 16, Ferro further discloses: wherein the determining and the storing of the at least one further set of control commands are performed only when a quality measure meets a quality criterion (“If the diagnostic image is of insufficient quality, the process 500 returns to step 535 and a new diagnostic image is captured. Once a diagnostic image of sufficient quality has been captured, the process 500 proceeds to section A shown in and described with respect to FIG. 8,” [0055]).
Regarding claim 17, Ferro does not expressly disclose but Raman teaches: wherein the adapting comprises at least one of: adapting at least one set of control commands stored in the database; or adding a further set of control commands to the database based on the adapted set of control commands ( “It will be appreciated that other remote devices (not shown at FIG. 2) may have access to the master protocol library, such that the remote device may be configured to periodically update the master protocol library by adding, removing, substituting, or otherwise altering the scan protocols stored in the master protocol library,” [0045]; 735 in FIG. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the adapted control commands of Raman within the remote imaging kiosk of Ferro because this would improve the efficiency of the system and imaging quality by allowing protocols to be gradually improved over time (Raman [0049]).
Regarding claim 18, Ferro discloses: wherein the medical imaging device is one of an X-ray device, a computed tomography device, a magnetic resonance imaging device, a positron emission tomography device, an ultrasound device or a radiotherapy device (“The first housing module is configured to house, among other things, a diagnostic imaging system (e.g., an X-ray system),” [0005]).
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferro (USP App. Pub. No. 2014/0003577) in view of Raman (USP App. Pub. No. 2021/0193331) and Viswanathan (USP App. Pub. No. 2006/0270927).
Regarding claim 6, Ferro discloses the set of control commands is provided as the set of remote control commands and not as a stored set of control commands (e.g., [0054]). Ferro does not expressly disclose but Viswanathan teaches: determining a complexity level of the medical imaging procedure to be performed based on the target procedure information; and in response to the complexity level being above a threshold value, providing the set of control commands as the set of remote control commands and not as a stored set of control commands (determining a “complexity score” for a given imaging procedure and doing the procedure manually or with remote navigation depending on the operator’s threshold score in [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the complexity scoring and associated workflow determinations of Viswanathan within the automated and manual imaging kiosk of Ferro and Raman because this would ensure that the imaging procedure can be done accurately and efficiently by automating when possible (Viswanathan [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 8, Ferro discloses: wherein the medical imaging procedure to be performed includes a plurality of different procedure steps (steps in the imaging procedure described in [0077]-[0078]). Ferro does not expressly disclose but Viswanathan teaches:
and the computer-implemented method further includes determining a complexity level for each procedure step based on the target procedure information, and for each respective procedure step, ascertaining whether the complexity level exceeds a threshold value, and wherein for the respective procedure step, the set of control commands is provided only in response to the complexity level of the respective procedure step not exceeding the threshold value (determining a “complexity score” for a given imaging procedure and doing the procedure manually or with remote navigation depending on the operator’s threshold score in [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the complexity scoring and associated workflow determinations of Viswanathan within the automated and manual imaging kiosk of Ferro and Raman because this would ensure that the imaging procedure can be done accurately and efficiently by automating when possible (Viswanathan [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 20, Ferro discloses: wherein the medical imaging procedure to be performed includes a plurality of different procedure steps (steps in the imaging procedure described in [0077]-[0078]).
Ferro does not expressly disclose but Viswanathan teaches: the computer-implemented method further includes determining a complexity level for each procedure step based on the target procedure information, and for each respective procedure step, ascertaining whether the complexity level exceeds a threshold value, and wherein for the respective procedure step, the set of control commands is provided only in response to the complexity level of the respective procedure step exceeding the threshold value (determining a “complexity score” for a given imaging procedure and doing the procedure manually or with remote navigation depending on the operator’s threshold score in [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the complexity scoring and associated workflow determinations of Viswanathan within the automated and manual imaging kiosk of Ferro and Raman because this would ensure that the imaging procedure can be done accurately and efficiently by automating when possible (Viswanathan [0059]-[0060]).
Additionally, it can be seen that each element is taught by either Ferro, Raman, or Viswanathan. Viswanathan’s complexity analysis does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Ferro such as the kiosk with x-ray imaging components and imaging protocols with multiple steps. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Ferro, Raman, and Viswanathan since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferro (USP App. Pub. No. 2014/0003577) in view of Raman (USP App. Pub. No. 2021/0193331) and Buelow (USP App. Pub. No. 2021/0244376).
Regarding claim 9, Ferro discloses: receiving an operator action in the medical facility when performing an imaging procedure and receiving procedure information describing the imaging procedure (video feeds in kiosk in [0073]).
Ferro does not expressly disclose, but Buelow teaches: ascertaining a comparison control command dataset by querying the database based on the procedure information describing the imaging procedure (protocol adherence in [0041]-[0042]);
--determining an efficiency value of the operator action based on a comparison between the operator action and the comparison control command dataset by the remote access facility; and providing the efficiency value (“FIG. 4 shows a graph for one aspect (e.g., field of view, inhalation, rotation, etc.) of adherence to the scan protocol. The information is aggregated over a large number of scans. Each bar represents exams performed by one specific operator. A height of a bar indicates the percentage of protocol-adherent cases performed by this operator,” [0039]; “In this example, information can be visually presented in the dashboard and/or otherwise conveyed to a user to instruct the trainee and/or provide feedback to the trainee. The information may indicate a suggestion to assist the trainee with performing a scan,” [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the operator quality scoring workflows of Buelow within the imaging kiosk of Ferro and Raman because this would make the imaging process more efficient and repeatable (Buelow [0042]).
Claim 19 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferro (USP App. Pub. No. 2014/0003577) in view of Raman (USP App. Pub. No. 2021/0193331) and Haberland (USP App. Pub. No. 2017/0147782).
Regarding claim 19, Ferro does not expressly disclose but Haberland teaches: wherein the injection device is a contrast medium injector (“The imaging device may also have a contrast agent injection device, for example a contrast agent injector. A contrast agent injection device, for example a contrast agent injector, may—in accordance with a contrast agent injection protocol—for example, dispense a defined amount of contrast agent at a defined time, over a defined period, with a defined flow rate and/or a defined flow rate course,” [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the injector of Haberland within the imaging kiosk of Ferro and Raman because this would allow the kiosk to handle more types of imaging procedures.
Additionally, it can be seen that each element is taught by either Haberland, Raman, or Ferro. The injector device of Haberland does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Ferro and Raman such as the kiosk with x-ray imaging components. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Haberland with the teachings of Ferro since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/12/2025 have been fully considered and are discussed below.
Regarding the subject matter ineligibility rejections, Applicant argues that the claimed invention is not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One) because the manual process where a supervisor technician monitors a junior technician performing an imaging exam, determines an appropriate protocol for the given imaging exam, and instructing the junior technician on the steps to perform the exam is not managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Remarks pages 10-11. This is not persuasive because the core of the invention is determining whether a procedure can be performed automatically by following “rules or instructions” (a method organizing human activity in 2106.04(a)(2)) and coordinating a remote operator where appropriate.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention integrates any abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two) because determining whether the imagining exam can be performed automatically and then either sending instructions to perform it or assigning a remote operator to perform it improves technology by “reliev[ing] the workload on operators” and “enable[ing] requests to be processed more quickly. Remarks pages 12-13. This is not persuasive because the alleged improvement does not define a specific technical solution beyond merely automating the abstract idea. The MPEP provides that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field can signal eligibility, see MPEP 2106.05(a), and provides examples of improvements to computer functionality, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), and improvements to any other technology of technical field, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I). “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool”. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification' s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. Unlike Enfish, the instant claimed invention appears to improve upon a judicial exception rather than a problem in the software arts. Rather than improving a computer' s ability to store data in a particular data structure (i.e., a self-referential database), the claimed invention merely uses computers to automate otherwise manual/mental steps such as determining if a task is suitable for automation is an abstract idea (i.e., a mental process). Performing the determination with a computer may be quicker or more convenient for operators, but these benefits flow generally from automation of otherwise manual processes.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant argues that the combination of Ferro and Raman fails to disclose the subject matter for claim 1 (previously found in claim 3), in particular, “in response to determining that the medical imaging procedure cannot be performed with the at least one set of control commands stored in the database, assigning a remote operator in the remote access facility for remote control of the medical imaging procedure to be performed by the remote operator.” Remarks pages 15-18. Applicant argues that the combination fails to teach the claimed triggering of remote operator assignment upon determining that the imaging procedure cannot be performed with the stored procedures because while Ferro uses a remote operator in some cases, it does not disclose a triggering step based on a determination. Applicant asserts that Raman’s merely directs that when a procedure cannot be automatically performed (No at 835 in FIG. 8) the step leads only to manual user input of protocol rather than automatically assigning a remote operator as claimed.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In particular, Raman discloses a trigger event, namely, a determination of failure in 835 in FIG. 8 which then leads to a branch in the automated process such that a person is assigned (i.e., “manual user selection”). Ferro discloses mechanisms for supplying human intervention by assigning a remote operator based on conditions in [0072] or based on an assistance button in [0061]. The combination resorts to remote human assistance (Ferro) when the automated protocol recommendation determines that the procedure cannot be completed using stored commands alone (Raman). Thus a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been able to combine the user assignment logic of Raman within the automated imaging workflows with human intervention where appropriate of Ferro to arrive at the instant claim 1.
Applicant further argues that the cited art fails to disclose “providing, by the remote access facility, the set of control commands to the medical facility in response to determining that the medical imaging procedure can be performed with a set of control commands.” Remarks pages 18-20. Applicant argues that there is no disclosure of using Raman’s automated logic (Yes in 835 in FIG. 8) with Ferro’s framework for providing commands because Raman’s protocol recommendations are based on “having the highest confidence weight” rather than a determination of whether a protocol “can be performed.” Remarks page 19. The Examiner disagrees because this argument fails to consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “can be performed” language. Raman’s FIG. 8 expressly discloses a YES/NO branch in 835 that is interpreted as a CAN/CANNOT determination. When the result is YES/CAN, then the system proceeds with automated execution of the scan session in 850. Automated execution of the scan session involves the transmission and use of the specific control commands and protocol executables (see [0042]). This conditional automated processing is viewed in light of Ferro’s disclosure of “prepared scripts” for particular imaging procedures in [0072].
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action (See MPEP 706.07(a)). Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JOSHUA BLANCHETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-2299. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7:30AM - 6:00PM, 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, Shahid Merchant, can be reached on (571) 270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA B BLANCHETTE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights