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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in response to applicant arguments filled on 07/10/2026 for application 18/586219.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 15, and 17 have been canceled.
Claims 2 and 14 have been amended. Claims 2, 4-9, 11-14, 16, and 21-22 are currently pending.
Detailed Action
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 2, 4-9, 11-14, 16, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 2, 4-9, 11-14, 16, and 21-22 are drawn to a method and system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 2 and 14 recite documenting one or more instructions or questions; and associating one or more culture plate images with a deferred consultation. The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity by identifying and reporting events preceding a pattern in a set of user data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including a user interface, devices, and a processor, which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., the “processor” receives selection through no more than a statement that said processor configured to, in response to receiving a selection) such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “processor” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims recite the additional element of displaying information; receiving a selection; and transmitting the differed consultation, which are considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements 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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
Paragraph 50, where “The culture reading system 110 includes a processor 102, a memory 104, an input 106 and a display 108. The memory 104, which can include both read-only memory (ROM) and random access memory (RAM), can be configured to provide instructions and data to the processor 102. For example, the memory 104 can store one or more modules that store data values defining instructions to configure processor 102 to perform functions of the culture reading system 110. As shown in Figure 1, the memory 104 includes a selection tool module 112 that includes instructions that configure the processor 102 to perform selection tool functions as described herein. The memory 104 can also be configured to store images of culture plates received from the incubation system 120. The memory can further include a consultation module that includes instructions that configure the processor to perform consultation functions as described herein.”
Paragraph 51 wherein The incubation system 120 can be configured to communicate with the culture reading system 110 via wired or wireless communication, cell communication, Bluetooth®, ZigBee®, LAN, WLAN, RF, IR, or any other communication method or system known in the art. For example, the incubation system 120 can be configured to transmit images of culture plates housed within the incubator 122 to the culture reading system 110.
Paragraph 44, where “The system can further provide an interface that allows a user to share one or more culture plate images or user interface display screens to one or more devices. By providing back-end processing, the system can detect, and prevent, the user from selecting colony locations that don’t meet predefined criteria. A selected colony location can be used by a user or instrumentation to perform a physical removal of a colony on the culture plate that corresponds to the selected colony location.”
Paragraph 48 wherein the incubation system 120 can be configured to communicate with the culture reading system 110 via wired or wireless communication, cell communication, Bluetooth®, ZigBee®, LAN, WLAN, RF, IR, or any other communication method or system known in the art. For example, the incubation system 120 can be configured to transmit images of culture plates housed within the incubator 122 to the culture reading system 110.
The claims recite the additional element of displaying information; receiving a selection; and transmitting the differed consultation, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data displaying. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 4-8, 11-13, 16, and18-22 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 2, 4-9, 11-14, 16, and 21-22is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordell et al. (US 2009/0041329 A1) in view of Backhaus et al. (US 10430550 B2).
As per claim 2, Nordell teaches a system for sharing data related to a culture plate image, comprising:
a first device comprising (Fig. 1):
a user interface configured to display one or more culture plate images (Para. 9 wherein “Linking the sample identification information with the image file with an index, such that the sample identification information and the image file persist in different storage locations”).
Nordell does not explicitly teach however Backhaus teaches:
and a user selectable deferred consultation selection option to initiate a deferred consultation request ( claim 1, wherein “generate data values to provide electronic worklists associated with respective evaluators, the electronic worklists to list pending diagnostic evaluation tasks designated for performance by the respective evaluators, wherein the data values to provide the electronic worklists are communicated to computing systems of the respective evaluators; initiate a command to designate a particular evaluator of the respective evaluators to perform the diagnostic evaluation task, wherein the particular evaluator is designated based on a match of at least one qualification of the particular evaluator with at least one requirement of the diagnostic evaluation task”) ; and
Nordell further teaches:
a processor configured to, in response to receiving a selection of the deferred consultation selection option:
enable tools on the user interface of the first device for documentation of one or more instructions or questions in a text format or recorded digital format to be associated with the deferred consultation request (Para. 20 wherein “. A high resolution image of the AOI is captured and stored. The high resolution image is analyzed for sample integrity (e.g., white blood cell count, sample area, sample dimensions). The AOI can be adjusted and rescanned based on programmable parameters”);
enable tools on the user interface of the first device for selection of at least one of the one or more culture plate images to be associated with the deferred consultation request (Para. 20 and 61 wherein “ At stage 328, the reviewer enters comments or otherwise adds annotations to the image which is then stored at stage 330 as an image annotation layer appended to the image file in the image table 162.”); and
electronically transmit the deferred consultation request to a second device of one or more consultants (Para. 10 and 20 wherein “A remote user (e.g., technician) can review the image and add metadata to the image information (e.g., white blood cell counts are added to a data field). The web server manages the work flow between the stored AOI images and the available users (i.e., technicians and other reviewers). A technician can access additional information about a particular image file, as well as other topics, through the knowledge management and social network applications”).
Nordell does not explicitly teach however Backhaus teaches:
or consultant groups to be added to a worklist of pending consultations, wherein the request includes the one or more culture plate images for review by the consultant (Claim 1 wherein worklist of pending diagnostics is taught).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filling to modify Nordell’s medical image review interface to include a user selectable option for initiating the deferred evaluation workflow taught by Backhaus. Bachkaus teaches associating medical images with an electronic evaluation order, and placing the evaluation task in a pending state of the evaluator’s electronic worklist. Providing a selectable interface option that up selection makes available Nordell’s documentation and image election tools would have predictably allowed the requesting user to enter the information and identify the images necessary to create and route the evaluation request. Such a modification would facilitate submission of complete image review requests and efficient assignment of those request to qualified remote reviewers.
As per claim 4, Nordell teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to associate the documentation of the one or more instructions or questions and the at least one of the one or more culture plate images with the deferred consultation request (Para. 49).
As per claim 5, Nordell teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the first device further comprises a communications module configured to transmit data to and receive data from one or more external devices or networks (Para. 49 and Fig. 2).
As per claim 6, Nordell teaches the system of claim 2, further comprising a second device, wherein the second device comprises:
a user interface configured to display the deferred consultation request (Fig. 2); and
an input configured to allow the consultant to interact with the user interface of the second device (Fig. 2) .
As per claim 7, Nordell teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the user interface of the second device is configured to display one or more culture plate annotation tools, wherein the input of the second device is configured to allow manipulation of the one or more annotation tools of the user interface of the second device to annotate at least one of the one or more culture plate images displayed on the user interface of the second device (para. 61).
As per claim 8, Nordell teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the second device further comprises a processor configured to:
process data received from the user interface of the second device (Para. 61-62);
associate one or more annotations performed using the one or more annotation tools of the user interface of the second device with the deferred consultation request (Para. 61-62 and 65); and
electronically transmit the one or more culture plate images and one or more annotations associated with the deferred consultation request to the first device (Para. 61-62 and 65).
As per claim 9, Nordell teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the user interface of the second device is configured to display an option to conclude the deferred consultation request by setting a workflow state (para. 72 wherein “At stage 515 the application returns to stage 502 to select the next image file in the image table 162; if all files in the table have been processed the image extraction process is complete at stage 516”).
As per claim 11, Nordell teaches the system of claim 10. Nordell does not explicitly teach however Backhaus teaches, wherein the deferred consultation request is accessible through the computer network, wherein the computer network is configured to store the deferred consultation request in the worklist of pending consultations of one or more consultants (claim 1). The motivation to combine references is the same seen in claim 1.
As per claim 12, Nordell teaches the system of claim 11, further comprising the second device in communication with the computer network, wherein the second device is configured to retrieve the deferred consultation request stored by the computer network in the worklist of pending consultations of one or more consultants ( Para. 7).
As per claim 13, Nordell teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the computer network is configured to transmit a notification to the second device that the deferred consultation request is available for retrieval in the worklist of pending consultations of one or more consultants (Para. 47).
Claims 14 and 16, and 18-22 recite substantially similar limitations as seen above and hence are rejected for similar rationale as noted above.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues the 101 rejection. The Applicant argues that the claims do not merely recite generic sharing of information or adding task to a shared list. Rather, the claim recites a specific processor driven workflow involving generating, association, and transmission of deferred consultation requests associated with culture plate images and related consultation data across different computing devices. Such features are directed to a particular technological implementation for managing and transmitting image related consultation information in a deferred consultation workflow, rather than a method of organizing human activity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim are directed to a specific consultation workflow, but nothing in the claims recite an improvement to computer technology or any other technical field. Rather, the devices in the claims are merely tools used to organize the consultation between users. Thus, the claims use generic computer components as tools to carry out and organizing the consultation process, rather than reciting a technical improvement in how the devices, images, or communications operate.
The Applicant argues that the claims address a challenge of sharing user generated data related to one or more culture plate images between users using different devices. In addition, claim 6 recites a particular technological implementation involving coordinate operation of a first device and a second device for implementing deferred consultation requests within the claimed multi device system. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sharing information between two devices is not a challenge for users. The claims are directed towards sharing and displaying information between devices but do not address any technical solution to actual cross device sharing problem. Simply, using two devices does not make the workflow a particular technological implementation.
The Applicant argues that similar to Example 42, the claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems by facilitating deferred review and management of image related consultation information across multipole computing devices in a structured and network-based manner. The claimed system enables the culture plate images, associated consultation information, and deferred consultation requests to be selectively associated, transmitted, and incorporated into worklists of pending consultations across different computing devices. Such features are directed to a particular application for managing workflows and are not merely directed to organizing human activity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The current claims are directed towards a user initiating a consultation request, and the system places that request on an ordinary pending task list. Nothing about the claim itself appears technological improved. Example 42 overcame the 101 rejection because it solved a specific technical problem: different systems could not readily share information because of format incompatibilities. The Examiner notes that claim 2 of Example 42 was found to be ineligible since it merely allowed users to access, update, and store medical information, which is more similar to the current claims. The current claims do not recite a particular queue structure, communication protocol, routing mechanism or any other technical improvement on how the devices share information.
Other applicant 101 arguments simply rehash issues already addressed above.
The Applicant argues the art rejection. The Applicant argues that the art fails to teach a user selectable deferred consultation selection option to initiate a deferred consultation request. The Applicant further argues that processor of the proposed claim combination would not be performing the same function as it did separately in Nordell or in Backhaus but would instead be performing new functions not contemplated by either Nordell or Backhaus separately, particularly, performing the claimed series of distinct steps in response to receiving a selection of the deferred consultation selection option.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Backhaus’s electronic worklist establishes that the consultation is deferred because the diagnostic evaluation task is placed in a pending queue for acceptance and performance. Backhaus further teaches user interaction with the worklist because the evaluator provides a command through the worklist to accept the pending task. Although Backhaus does not expressly identify the requester side control using the phrase deferred consultation selection option, it demonstrates that the deferred review workflow is initiated and managed through user selectable controls. In view of Nordell’s GUI and documentation tools, it would have been obvious to provide a selectable interface control through which the requesting user initiates that known deferred review workflow.
Conclusion
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 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 MAROUN P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
MAROUN P. KANAAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/MAROUN P KANAAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights