DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on 9/3/2023.
Claims 1 – 14 are pending.
Priority is claimed as CON of PCT/JP2022/004575 (filed on 2/7/2022), which further claims priority to Japanese application JP2021-050337 (filed on 3/24/2021).
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 – 8, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al (US 20200042349, hereinafter Jain), in view of Berg et al (USPAT 9971621, hereinafter Berg), and further in view of Broz et al (US 20170041184, hereinafter Broz).
As per claim 1, Jain discloses: A medical information processing system that receives medical information as a processing target and a processing request, executes a process according to the processing request, and outputs a processing result, the medical information processing system comprising one or more processors, wherein the processor is configured to:
configure a plurality of virtual machines; (Jain figure 1A and [0029]: “various instances of virtualized entities 112 (e.g., virtual machines VM1, VM2, VM3, VM7, VM8, VM9, etc.) are implemented at the nodes of cluster 102.”.)
perform processing request distribution for receiving the processing request and for distributing the processing request to a non-emergency system processing request queue or an emergency system processing request queue depending on whether the processing request is a non-emergency system processing request for requesting a process classified into non-emergency or an emergency system processing request for requesting a process classified into emergency; (Jain [0048]: “The job queuing and processing technique 200 can commence by initializing a set of multi-level queues that comprise at least a high priority job queue and a low priority job queue (step 202).”; [0050]: “If an incoming job request is received (see “Incoming Job Request Received” path of decision 208), then the job request is entered into one of the multi-level queues based at least in part on the queue management logic (step 230). For example, the queue management logic might enter the incoming job request in the high priority job queue or the low priority job queue based at least in part on the VM identifier associated with the job request.”.)
monitor the non-emergency system processing request queue and perform a process of a non-emergency system corresponding to instruction content of the non-emergency system processing request stacked in the non-emergency system processing request queue; (Jain [0060]: “a low priority job queue associated with the job type is scanned for job requests (step 410). If one or more job requests are discovered (see “Yes” path of decision 412), the job request at the head of the low priority job queue is selected for processing (step 416) and the contents of the job queues are adjusted (step 418).”)
monitor the emergency system processing request queue and perform a process of an emergency system corresponding to instruction content of the emergency system processing request stacked in the emergency system processing request queue; (Jain [0061]: “a high priority job queue (e.g., from the multi-level job queues) associated with the job type is scanned for job requests (step 404). If one or more job requests are discovered (see “Yes” path of decision 406), the job request at the head of the high priority job queue is selected for processing (step 408).”)
Jain did not explicitly disclose:
and perform calculation resource usage state control for controlling the number of the non-emergency system processes to be operated and the number of the emergency system processes to be operated based on the number of the emergency system processing requests that have been received and the number of the emergency system processes in operation, and the calculation resource usage state control includes a process for temporarily stopping a part of a plurality of the non-emergency system processes in operation and newly activating the emergency system process to increase the number of the emergency system processes.
However, Berg teaches:
and perform calculation resource usage state control for controlling the number of the non-emergency system processes to be operated and the number of the emergency system processes to be operated based on the number of the emergency system processing requests that have been received and the number of the emergency system processes in operation, and the calculation resource usage state control includes a process for [removing] a part of a plurality of the non-emergency system processes in operation and newly activating the emergency system process to increase the number of the emergency system processes. (Berg col 6, lines 13 – 31: “the scaling manager detects a “scale out” event indicating that one or more additional VM instances should be added to scale group 210… the scaling manager may monitor a volume or rate network traffic received by the VMs 215 or number or frequency of new session requests distributed to VMs 215 by a load balancer. If the network traffic or session requests exceed a threshold specified in the event definitions for a scale group, the scaling manager triggers a scale out event.”; col 7, lines 18 – 34: “the scaling manager triggers a scale in event indicating that one or more VM instances should be removed from scale group 210… if a metric falls below a threshold specified in the event definitions for scale group 210, the scaling manager removes a VM instance from the scale group 210, based on a scaling policy associated with scale group 210. Of course, the thresholds used to trigger a scale out event at block 202 may be different than the thresholds used to trigger a scale in event at block 205.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Berg into that of Jain in order to perform calculation resource usage state control for controlling the number of the non-emergency system processes to be operated and the number of the emergency system processes to be operated based on the number of the emergency system processing requests that have been received and the number of the emergency system processes in operation, and the calculation resource usage state control includes a process for [removing] a part of a plurality of the non-emergency system processes in operation and newly activating the emergency system process to increase the number of the emergency system processes. Jain figure 4 teaches receiving incoming job requests and assigning the requests to appropriate queues for high priority and low priority requests and scheduling them from the queues accordingly. Berg figure 2 teaches scheduling system may perform load balancing act such as scaling in and out of appropriate VM groups in response to change in conditions. It is well known in the art that load balancing techniques can be employed to improve the efficiency of the priority-based scheduling system. Using the known technique of scaling in and out instance type in response to change in demands to improve the scheduling and execution efficiency of the task scheduling system would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Broz teaches:
wherein the removing comprises temporarily stopping a part of a plurality of the non-emergency system processes in operation; (Broz [0094]: “when it is desirable to reallocate resources consumed by that virtualized component, e.g., for higher priority computations. For instance, when additional resources are needed, a VM/container performing lower priority computations may be suspended, … Once other higher priority computations are complete, the VM/container and/or associated applications may be reactivated and notifications originating from the application running on the VM/container or from the VM/container itself reinitiated.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Broz into that of Jain and Berg in order to have the removing a part of a plurality of the non-emergency system processes in operation comprises temporarily stopping a part of a plurality of the non-emergency system processes in operation. Berg figure 2 teaches scaling in and out specific VM instance groups in response to changing in demands. Broz [0094] teaches that in the event of resource is needed to process high priority tasks, VMs running lower priority tasks can be suspended to make room for high priority tasks, and to resume at later time. It is well known in the field that temporarily suspend a task to make space for a higher priority task would improve the efficiency of the task scheduling and execution system. Using the known technique of load balancing in addition to the scaling type of load balancing of Berg would gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as improved scheduling and execution efficiency, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 3, the combination of Jain, Berg and Broz further teach:
The medical information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: dynamically calculate an upper limit of the number of the non-emergency system processes that are temporarily stoppable within a range in which a second waiting time until completion of a process for the non-emergency system processing request falls within a second allowable waiting time, temporarily stop the non-emergency system processes of which the number does not exceed the upper limit, and newly activate the emergency system process instead. (Broz [0094].)
As per claim 4, the combination of Jain, Berg and Broz further teach:
The medical information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: increase the number of the virtual machines and newly activate the plurality of emergency system processes on the virtual machine that has been added to increase the number of the emergency system processes. (Berg col 6, lines 13 – 31: “the scaling manager detects a “scale out” event indicating that one or more additional VM instances should be added to scale group 210… the scaling manager may monitor a volume or rate network traffic received by the VMs 215 or number or frequency of new session requests distributed to VMs 215 by a load balancer. If the network traffic or session requests exceed a threshold specified in the event definitions for a scale group, the scaling manager triggers a scale out event.”.)
As per claim 5, the combination of Jain, Berg and Broz further teach:
The medical information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: decrease the number of the emergency system processes in a case where a state in which the number of the emergency system processes waiting for a process is equal to or greater than a defined number is maintained for defined time or more. (Berg col 7, lines 18 – 34.)
As per claim 6, the combination of Jain, Berg and Broz further teach:
The medical information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: decrease the number of the emergency system processes added with temporary stop of the non-emergency system process and resume the non-emergency system process that has been temporarily stopped in a case where a state in which the number of the emergency system processes waiting for a process is equal to or greater than a first defined number is maintained for first defined time or more. (Berg col 7, lines 18 – 34.)
As per claim 7, the combination of Jain, Berg and Broz further teach:
The medical information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to: decrease the number of the emergency system processes on the virtual machine that has been added and decrease the number of the virtual machine that has been added in a case where a state in which the number of the emergency system processes waiting for a process is equal to or greater than a second defined number is maintained for second defined time or more. (Berg col 7, lines 17 – 34.)
As per claim 8, the combination of Jain, Berg and Broz further teach:
The medical information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to: decrease the number of the emergency system processes added with temporary stop of the non-emergency system process and resume the non-emergency system process that has been temporarily stopped in a case where a state in which the number of the emergency system processes waiting for a process is equal to or greater than a first defined number is maintained for first defined time or more; and after resuming all of the non-emergency system processes that have been temporarily stopped, decrease the number of the emergency system processes on the virtual machine that has been added and decrease the number of the virtual machines that have been added. (Berg col 6, lines 13 – 31 and col 7, lines 18 – 34.)
As per claim 13, it is the method variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it is the non-transitory, computer-readable tangible recording medium variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. (Jain [0101]: CRM.)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jain, Berg and Broz, and further in view of Bishop et al (US 20170083368, hereinafter Bishop).
As per claim 2, the combination of Jain, Berg and Broz did not teach:
The medical information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: calculate a first processing waiting time until completion of a process for the emergency system processing request from the number of the emergency system processing requests that have been received and the number of the emergency system processes in operation, and increase the number of the emergency system processes in a case where the first processing waiting time exceeds a first allowable waiting time to keep the first processing waiting time within the first allowable waiting time.
However, Bishop teaches:
The medical information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: calculate a first processing waiting time until completion of a process for the emergency system processing request from the number of the emergency system processing requests that have been received and the number of the emergency system processes in operation, and increase the number of the emergency system processes in a case where the first processing waiting time exceeds a first allowable waiting time to keep the first processing waiting time within the first allowable waiting time. (Bishop [0236]: “The disclosed method can further include detecting latency exceeding a predetermined threshold in running the first set of tasks sequences in the first container, automatically allocating additional machines to the first container, and scheduling units of work for the first set of task sequences over the multiple machines and the additional machines in the first container. The number of machines in the first container can increase from 8 to 10.”.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bishop into that Jain, Berg and Broz in order to calculate a first processing waiting time until completion of a process for the emergency system processing request from the number of the emergency system processing requests that have been received and the number of the emergency system processes in operation, and increase the number of the emergency system processes in a case where the first processing waiting time exceeds a first allowable waiting time to keep the first processing waiting time within the first allowable waiting time. Berg col 6, lines 13 – 31 teaches the scaling manager scales out the number of VMs in the scaling pool by monitoring the rate of traffic submitted to the VMs. Bishop [0236] teaches scaling out could be due to compare a task’s latency against a threshold. It is well known in the field that resource allocation can be optimized by performing scaling in and out events in response to change in demands. Using the known technique of using latency as the determining factor for scaling type of load balancing of Berg would gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as improved scheduling and execution efficiency, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jain, Berg and Broz, and further in view of Desai et al (US 202000312005, hereinafter Desai).
As per claim 9, the combination of Jain, Berg and Broz did not teach:
The medical information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: calculate a current processing waiting time of a case of receiving a processing request for each of the non-emergency system processing request and the emergency system processing request and provide a user terminal of a medical institution with information on the current processing waiting time.
However, Desai teaches:
The medical information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: calculate a current processing waiting time of a case of receiving a processing request for each of the non-emergency system processing request and the emergency system processing request and provide a user terminal of a medical institution with information on the current processing waiting time. (Desai [0100])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Desai into that Jain, Berg and Broz in order to calculate a current processing waiting time of a case of receiving a processing request for each of the non-emergency system processing request and the emergency system processing request and provide a user terminal of a medical institution with information on the current processing waiting time. Berg col 6, lines 13 – 31 teaches the scaling manager scales out the number of VMs in the scaling pool by monitoring the rate of traffic submitted to the VMs. Bishop [0100] teaches the corresponding wait time of the requests can be determined and displayed to user to aid in scheduling decision making. It is well known in the field that resource allocation can be optimized by performing scaling in and out events in response to change in demands. Using the known technique of using latency as the determining factor and displaying such latency information to user would allow the requestor to also initiate the scaling event manually, such combination would gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as improved scheduling and execution efficiency, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jain, Berg and Broz, and further in view of Dickson (US 20140101663).
As per claim 10, the combination of Jain, Berg and Broz did not teach:
The medical information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: prepare a first plan promising that a maximum waiting time until completion of a process for the non-emergency system processing request is a third waiting time, and a maximum waiting time until completion of a process for the emergency system processing request is a fourth waiting time shorter than the third waiting time, and a second plan promising that at least one of the maximum waiting time until the completion of the process for the non-emergency system processing request or the maximum waiting time until the completion of the process for the emergency system processing request is a waiting time shorter than the maximum waiting time of the first plan; and include the non-emergency system process, the emergency system process, and the virtual machine for the first plan that are allocated to a process of a processing request from a medical institution that has selected the first plan, and the non-emergency system process, the emergency system process, and the virtual machine for the second plan that are allocated to a process of a processing request from a medical institution that has selected the second plan.
However, Dickson teaches:
The medical information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: prepare a first plan promising that a maximum waiting time until completion of a process for the non-emergency system processing request is a third waiting time, and a maximum waiting time until completion of a process for the emergency system processing request is a fourth waiting time shorter than the third waiting time, and a second plan promising that at least one of the maximum waiting time until the completion of the process for the non-emergency system processing request or the maximum waiting time until the completion of the process for the emergency system processing request is a waiting time shorter than the maximum waiting time of the first plan; and include the non-emergency system process, the emergency system process, and the virtual machine for the first plan that are allocated to a process of a processing request from a medical institution that has selected the first plan, and the non-emergency system process, the emergency system process, and the virtual machine for the second plan that are allocated to a process of a processing request from a medical institution that has selected the second plan. (Dickson [0018])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Dickson into that Jain, Berg and Broz in order to prepare a first plan promising that a maximum waiting time until completion of a process for the non-emergency system processing request is a third waiting time, and a maximum waiting time until completion of a process for the emergency system processing request is a fourth waiting time shorter than the third waiting time, and a second plan promising that at least one of the maximum waiting time until the completion of the process for the non-emergency system processing request or the maximum waiting time until the completion of the process for the emergency system processing request is a waiting time shorter than the maximum waiting time of the first plan; and include the non-emergency system process, the emergency system process, and the virtual machine for the first plan that are allocated to a process of a processing request from a medical institution that has selected the first plan, and the non-emergency system process, the emergency system process, and the virtual machine for the second plan that are allocated to a process of a processing request from a medical institution that has selected the second plan. Jain figure 4 teaches receiving incoming job requests and assigning the requests to appropriate queues for high priority and low priority requests and scheduling them from the queues accordingly. Dickson [0018] teaches the different priority queues may be of different defined response times. It is well known in the art that load balancing techniques can be employed to improve the efficiency of the priority-based scheduling system. Using the known technique of priority-based queue system to enforce the predefined response time required by the requests, the combination would gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as improved scheduling and execution efficiency, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 11, the combination of Jain, Berg, Broz and Dickson further teach:
The medical information processing system according to claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to: increase or decrease the number of the non-emergency system processes for the second plan, the number of the emergency system processes for the second plan, and the number of the virtual machines for the second plan according to an increase or decrease in the number of the medical institutions selecting the second plan. (Berg col 6, lines 13 – 31.)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jain, Berg and Broz, in view of Ramsden-Pogue (USPAT 9367354), and further in view of Rudowski et al (US 20030163350, hereinafter Rudowski).
As per claim 12, the combination of Jain, Berg and Broz further teach:
A medical information processing service providing method implemented by using the medical information processing system according to claim 1, comprising: receiving, by the medical information processing system, the processing request from a plurality of [users] via a communication line; (Jain figure 2.)
Jain, Berg and Broz did not teach:
wherein the users are medical institutions;
and executing, by the medical information processing system, a process corresponding to the processing request and returning the processing result to a medical institution that is a request source of the processing request.
Ramsden-Pogue teaches:
and executing, by the medical information processing system, a process corresponding to the processing request and returning the processing result to a medical institution that is a request source of the processing request. (Ramsden-Pogue col 9, lines 50 – 56.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ramsden-Pogue into that Jain, Berg and Broz in order to execute a process corresponding to the processing request and returning the processing result to a medical institution that is a request source of the processing request. Jain figure 4 teaches receiving incoming job requests and assigning the requests to appropriate queues for high priority and low priority requests and scheduling them from the queues accordingly. Jain figure 4 teaches receiving incoming job requests and assigning the requests to appropriate queues for high priority and low priority requests and scheduling them from the queues accordingly. Ramsden-Pogue col 9, lines 50 – 56 teaches the result of the request can be send back to the requestor. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to see that claiming sending the result back to the requestor is merely claiming the combination of known parts in the field to achieve the predictable results and execute incoming tasks and return the result back to requestor and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Rudowski teaches:
wherein the users are medical institutions; (Rudowski [0013])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Rudowski into that Jain, Berg, Broz and Ramsden-Pogue in order to the users are medical institutions. The claimed medical institution is merely an intended use for the user/requestor, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the generalized scheduling and execution of systems to other specific areas for specific needs (medical), as such adaption does not deviate from the overall teaching of the prior arts and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
La Fratta (USPAT 11175859) teaches “determining whether a number of high priority commands from a cache controller meets a first threshold. In response to meeting the first threshold, a second threshold, which indicates a maximum number of low priority commands allowed in a low latency memory command queue, is set to a first value. In response to not meeting the first threshold, the second threshold is set to a second value. The method further selects a memory command for issuance from the cache controller command queue, wherein the memory command is a high priority memory command when the number of low priority memory commands stored in the low latency memory controller command queue meets the second threshold and is a low priority memory command when the number of low priority memory commands does not meet the second threshold.”;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)270-7756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 7PM.
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, April Blair can be reached at 5712701014. 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.
/CHARLES M SWIFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196