DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Claims
The office action is in response to the claims filed on June 29, 2026 for the application filed on December 19, 2024, which is a U.S. National Stage of International Application No. PCT/EP2023/066143 filed June 15, 2023, which claims priority to Provisional Application No. 63/356,515 filed on June 29, 2022. Claims 1 – 21 and 23 are currently pending and have been examined as discussed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “an upcoming imaging exaction” in line 4 of claim 15 and line 4 of claim 17 should be replaced with “an upcoming imaging examination”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 21 and 23 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.
Examiners should determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance with the flowchart in MPEP 2016(III).
Eligibility Step 1:
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether each claim as a whole falls within one of the statutory categories of invention (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). See MPEP 2106.03. In the instant application, claims 1 – 4 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); claims 5 – 21 are directed to a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium (i.e., an article of manufacture); and claim 23 is directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., a process).
While each one of claims 1 – 21 and 23 appears to fall within one or more statutory categories of invention, the Office has determined that the full eligibility analysis is required because there is doubt as to whether the applicant is effectively seeking coverage for a judicial exception itself. The eligibility of each claim is not self-evident at least because each claim as a whole did not appear to clearly improve a technology or computer functionality. To the contrary, each claim as a whole appeared to merely apply one or more judicial exceptions on a computer.
Accordingly, it has been determined that each one of claims 1 – 21 and 23 as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories under Step 1, and the Office proceeds with the full eligibility analysis (the Alice/Mayo test described in MPEP 2106(III)) as discussed below.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One:
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether each claim is directed to one or more of the judicial exceptions (i.e., an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon). See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). After evaluation, it has been determined that claims 1 – 21 and 23 are directed to judicial exceptions because claims 1 – 21 and 23 recite an abstract idea. (The Office will not determine that a claim is not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One for the mere reason that claim further recites one or more additional elements beyond the judicial exception.)
Independent claims 1, 5, and 23 are determined to be directed to a judicial exception including abstract ideas (i.e., mental process). Representative claim 1 recites the mental process identified in bold as:
A system for optimizing medical imaging examinations, the system comprising:
one or more processors configured to
access one or more data streams of an imaging bay including at least (i) a screen mirroring data stream comprising content presented on a controller display and (ii) a communication pathway connecting the imaging bay and at least some of the one or more processors;
assess a complexity of an upcoming medical imaging examination identified by a scheduler by:
acquiring data related to the upcoming medical imaging examination, the data comprising one or more of time taken to complete preparation and scanning activities associated with the upcoming medical imaging examination, whether contrast is used, what type of contrast is used, body part to be imaged, patient demographics, idle time between sequences, likelihood of repeated or additional imaging sequences, or image quality; and
determining the complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination based on a weighted combination of a plurality of complexity scores respectively derived from the acquired data; and
determining, based on the complexity, a likelihood that a local operator performing the medical imaging examination will require assistance from a remote expert;
output an alert indicative of the determined complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination and the likelihood that the local operator will require assistance from the remote expert; and
update the scheduler comprising a schedule of medical imaging examinations based on the determined complexity for the upcoming medical imaging examination.
The identified limitations of “optimizing medical imaging examinations,” “assess a complexity of an upcoming medical imaging examination identified by a scheduler,” “determining the complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination based on a weighted combination of a plurality of complexity scores respectively derived from the acquired data,” and “determining, based on the complexity, a likelihood that a local operator performing the medical imaging examination will require assistance from a remote expert” fall within the subject matter grouping of mental processes. A broadest reasonable interpretation of this combination amounts to the activity of determining an updated schedule of medical imaging examinations based on the complexity of an upcoming medical imaging examination and the likelihood that a local operator performing a medical imaging examination will require assistance from a remote expert. This activity may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, and thus represents an abstract idea falling in the “mental process” grouping. With the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in each of claims 1, 5, and 23 themselves that forecloses them from being performed by a human, mentally with or without tools such as pen and paper. Thus, this activity is an abstract idea in the "mental process" grouping.
Accordingly, claims 1, 5, and 23 are recite judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Dependent claims 2 – 4 and 6 – 21 are directed to one or more judicial exceptions (i.e., abstract idea exceptions) under Step 2A, Prong One of the full eligibility analysis as follows:
Regarding claims 2 – 4 and 6 – 21, each combination of limitations identified in bold as “determining the complexity of the upcoming one or more imaging examinations includes: partitioning data related to historical imaging examinations into one or more classes based on one or more criterion; generating performance statistics for the partitioned historical imaging examinations in each class; partitioning data related one or more current imaging examinations into one or more classes based on the one or more criterion; applying the generated performance statistics for the partitioned historical imaging examinations to the one or more current imaging examinations in a common class; and determining the complexity of the one or more current imaging examinations based on the generated performance statistics” in claims 2 and 9, “generate a prediction of one or more factors contributing to the determined complexity of the upcoming imaging examinations” in claims 3 and 12, “indicating that an upcoming imaging [examination] will be complex” in claims 4, 15, and 17, “the acquired data includes one or more of a modality of the medical imaging device an imaged anatomy, and specific imaging sequences specified in an imaging examination card” in claim 6, “the acquired data further includes one or more information on historical imaging examinations, wherein the one or more information includes one or more of total length, time for each imaging examination phase, contrast agent delivery, patient unloading, and idle time” in claim 7, “the acquired data is acquired from one or more data sources including HL7 messages, an examination order placed by a referring physician, an examination card, a patient electronic medical record, and imaging technician education and experience records” in claim 8, “the one or more criterion include examination type, modality, imaging sequences, patient characteristics, an imaging technologist performing the examination, or a technician's class segmented by experience” in claim 10, “the performance statistics include one or more of average total examination time, average time for each phase, average idle time between successive phases, average number of rescans, average number of consultations with a remote expert, and average obtained image quality” in claim 11, “determine missing data required to determine the complexity; and assign an average data value for the missing required data; and assign an average data value for the missing required data” in claim 13, “generate complexity prediction statistics for coarser examination types that omit the missing required data” in claim 14, “receive feedback from the LO on the complexity at an end of the imaging examination” in claim 16, “receive feedback from the RE on the complexity at an end of the imaging examination” in claim 18, “the alert is output prior to beginning upcoming imaging examinations” in claim 19, “determining the complexity based on one or more patient characteristics” in claim 20, and “determining the complexity based on data related to a local operator (LO) performing the medical imaging examination” in claim 21 further defines the activity of determining the updated schedule of medical imaging examinations based on the complexity of an upcoming medical imaging examination and the likelihood that the local operator performing the medical imaging examination will require assistance from a remote expert. This activity may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, and thus represents an abstract idea falling in the “mental process” grouping. With the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in each of claims 2 – 4 and 6 – 21 themselves that forecloses them from being performed by a human, mentally with or without tools such as pen and paper. Thus, this activity is an abstract idea in the "mental process" grouping.
Accordingly, claims 2 – 4 and 6 – 21 are recite judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claims 1, 5, and 23 recite additional limitations beyond the judicial exceptions. Representative claim 1 recites the additional limitations identified in bold as:
A system for optimizing medical imaging examinations, the system comprising:
one or more processors configured to
access one or more data streams of an imaging bay including at least (i) a screen mirroring data stream comprising content presented on a controller display and (ii) a communication pathway connecting the imaging bay and at least some of the one or more processors;
assess a complexity of an upcoming medical imaging examination identified by a scheduler by:
acquiring data related to the upcoming medical imaging examination, the data comprising one or more of time taken to complete preparation and scanning activities associated with the upcoming medical imaging examination, whether contrast is used, what type of contrast is used, body part to be imaged, patient demographics, idle time between sequences, likelihood of repeated or additional imaging sequences, or image quality; and
determining the complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination based on a weighted combination of a plurality of complexity scores respectively derived from the acquired data; and
determining, based on the complexity, a likelihood that a local operator performing the medical imaging examination will require assistance from a remote expert;
output an alert indicative of the determined complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination and the likelihood that the local operator will require assistance from the remote expert; and
update the scheduler comprising a schedule of medical imaging examinations based on the determined complexity for the upcoming medical imaging examination.
Claim 1 recites additional limitations beyond the judicial exception (i.e., the mental process of determining an updated schedule of medical imaging examinations) that are identified in bold as “a system,” “one or more processors configured to access one or more data streams of an imaging bay including at least (i) a screen mirroring data stream comprising content presented on a controller display and (ii) a communication pathway connecting the imaging bay and at least some of the one or more processors,” “acquiring data related to the upcoming medical imaging examination, the data comprising one or more of time taken to complete preparation and scanning activities associated with the upcoming medical imaging examination, whether contrast is used, what type of contrast is used, body part to be imaged, patient demographics, idle time between sequences, likelihood of repeated or additional imaging sequences, or image quality,” “output an alert indicative of the determined complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination,” and “update the scheduler comprising a schedule of medical imaging examinations based on the determined complexity for the upcoming medical imaging examination.” At best, looking at the combination of all additional elements and the judicial exception, the claim as a whole amounts merely applying the abstract idea (i.e., the mental process of determining an updated schedule of medical imaging examinations) to a general purpose computer (i.e., having one or more processors), with the computer being used for necessary data gathering (i.e., accessing one or more data streams of an imaging bay, e.g., a screen mirroring data stream and a communication pathway, and acquiring data related to the upcoming medical imaging examination) and data outputting (i.e., outputting an alert indicative of the determined complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination and updating the scheduler comprising a schedule of medical imaging examinations).
MPEP 2106.05(a) states: “In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim ‘purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself’ or ‘any other technology or technical field.’… [A]n improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology.” Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states: “Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.” In the instant application, claim 1 as a whole does not improve the functioning of the processors or the imaging bay having the controller display; nor does the claim as a whole improve any other technology or technical field. The processors and the imaging bay are general purpose computer components added post-hoc to the abstract idea of determining an updated schedule of medical imaging examinations based on the likelihood that a local operator performing a medical imaging examination will require assistance from a remote expert. The claim as a whole improves exclusively upon the abstract idea itself by using conventional and generic computer technology (i.e., the processors) to merely automate the manual process of determining the updated schedule medical imaging examinations. An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP 2106.05(a) citing MPEP 2106.05(f). In the instant application, claim 1 as a whole does not recite how the one or more processors update the scheduler comprising a schedule of medical imaging examinations based on the determined complexity for the upcoming medical imaging examination, how the one or more processors determine the complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination based on a weighted combination of a plurality of complexity scores respectively derived from the acquired data, and how the one or more processors determine, based on the complexity, a likelihood that a local operator performing the medical imaging examination will require assistance from a remote expert.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(g), the limitations of “accessing one or more data streams of an imaging bay including at least (i) a screen mirroring data stream comprising content presented on a controller display and (ii) a communication pathway connecting the imaging bay and at least some of the one or more processors,” “acquiring data related to the upcoming medical imaging examination” (i.e., pre-solution activity of necessary data gathering) and “output an alert indicative of the determined complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination and the likelihood that the local operator will require assistance from the remote expert” and “update the scheduler comprising a schedule of medical imaging examinations based on the determined complexity for the upcoming medical imaging examination “(i.e., post-solution activities of data outputting) are determined to add no more than insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The claim as a whole represents the primary process (i.e., determining the updated schedule of medical imaging examinations) to which the extra-solution activities are incidental. Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(h), the additional limitations, individually or in combination, also amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. In the instant application, the additional limitations (i.e., the processors, the image bay having the controller display, etc.) do no more than link the abstract idea (i.e., determining the updated schedule) to a computer environment for medical imaging examinations. Thus, the additional limitations fail to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Accordingly, in view of these considerations, the Office has determined that each one of claims 1, 5, and 23 as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, and thus each claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A.
Dependent claims 2 – 4 and 6 – 21 present additional information in tandem with further details regarding elements and the abstract idea from an associated one of independent claims 1, 5, and 23 and are therefore directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons as given Under Step 2A, Prong One above. Claims 2 – 3, 6 – 14, and 20 – 21 do not recite any additional limitations beyond the abstract idea of determining the updated schedule of medical imaging examinations. Claims 4 and 15 – 19 further recite additional limitations, and these additional limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two as follows:
Claims 4 and 15 – 19 recite the additional limitations identified in bold as “wherein outputting an alert indicative of the determined complexity of the upcoming imaging examinations includes: outputting the alert indicating that an upcoming imaging exaction will be complex on an electronic processing device operable by a local operator performing the upcoming imaging examination” in claim 4, “outputting an alert indicative of the determined complexity of the upcoming imaging examinations includes: outputting the alert indicating that an upcoming imaging exaction will be complex on an electronic processing device operable by a local operator performing the upcoming imaging [examination]” in claim 15, “the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: receive feedback from the LO on the complexity at an end of the imaging examination” in claim 16, “outputting an alert indicative of the determined complexity of the upcoming imaging examinations includes: outputting the alert indicating that an upcoming imaging [examination] will be complex on a remote electronic processing device operable by a remote expert (RE) monitoring the upcoming imaging examination” in claim 17, “the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: receive feedback from the RE on the complexity at an end of the imaging examination” in claim 18, and “the alert is output prior to beginning upcoming imaging examinations” in claim 19. Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(g), the Office has determined that each one of claims 4 and 15 – 19 as a whole fails to add more than insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception (i.e., the mental process of determining the updated schedule of medical imaging examinations based on the likelihood that the local operator performing the upcoming medical imaging examination will require assistance from the remote expert). Each one of claims 4 and 15 – 19 as a whole represents the well-known pre-solution activity of necessary data gathering because each claim as a whole is incidental to the primary process of determining the updated schedule of medical imaging examinations. Each one of claims 4 and 15 – 19 as a whole represents the well-known post-solution activity of data outputting (i.e., outputting the alert indicating that an upcoming imaging exaction will be complex) because each claim as a whole is incidental to the primary process of determining the updated schedule. The broadest reasonable interpretation of each one of claims 4 and 15 – 19 as a whole does not add meaningful limitation to the process of determining the updated schedule of medical imaging examinations based on the complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination and the likelihood that the local operator will require assistance from the remote expert. Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(h), the additional limitations, individually or in combination, also amount to merely indicating the computer field of medical imaging examinations in which to apply the judicial exception, i.e., determining the updated schedule. Thus, the additional limitations fail to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Accordingly, the Office has determined that each one of claims 2 – 4 and 6 – 21 as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, and thus each claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A.
Eligibility Step 2B:
Regarding independent claims 1, 5, and 23, the Office carries over its identification of the additional elements (and combinations thereof) from Step 2A, Prong Two so as to apply the same additional elements in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(II). The Office further carries over its conclusions from the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), (e) through (h) in Step 2A, Prong Two so as to apply the same considerations in Step 2B.
Under Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether the claim provides an inventive concept by determining if the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After evaluation, there is no indication that an additional element or combination of elements 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, each claim as a whole does not provide an improvement to technology or technical field under MPEP 2106.05(a). The additional limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or necessary data gathering and/or outputting under MPEP 2106.05(g). Each claim as a whole recites the one or more processors at a high level of generality, with their functions claimed in a merely generic manner such that each claim as a whole represents the well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions of the processors for automatically determining the updated schedule of medical imaging examinations based on the likelihood that the local operator performing the upcoming medical imaging examination will require assistance from the remote expert. For the reasons stated under Step 2A Prong Two, the Office finds that the claim as a whole does not recite a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve an outcome. Evidence of processors automatically determining the complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination to update a schedule being well-understood, routine and conventional functions is found in Hader (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0093285 A1).
Furthermore, looking at the limitations individually or as any ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at each claim as a whole. There is no indication that the individual elements or combinations of elements amount to an inventive concept.
Therefore, claims 1, 5, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 2 – 4 and 6 – 21, the Office carries over its determination from Step 2A, Prong Two that claims 2 – 3, 6 – 14, and 20 – 21 do not further recite additional limitations beyond the judicial exception (i.e., the abstract idea of determining the updated schedule medical imaging examinations based on the likelihood that the local operator performing the upcoming medical imaging examination will require assistance from the remote expert) so as to apply the same determination in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(II). The Office further carries over its conclusions from the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), (e) through (h) in Step 2A, Prong Two so as to apply the same considerations in Step 2B. The dependent claims merely present additional abstract information in tandem with further details regarding the elements from the independent claims and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons as given above. Claims 4 and 15 – 19 do not recite any additional limitations beyond the abstract idea of determining the updated schedule of medical imaging examinations. Claims 4 and 15 – 19 further recite additional limitations, and these additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B as follows:
Each claim as a whole does not provide an improvement to technology or technical field under MPEP 2106.05(a), but rather only improves the abstract idea itself. Each claim as a whole amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to generic computer components (i.e., the non-transitory computer readable medium and the electronic processing device) under MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations of “wherein outputting an alert indicative of the determined complexity of the upcoming imaging examinations includes: outputting the alert indicating that an upcoming imaging exaction will be complex on an electronic processing device operable by a local operator performing the upcoming imaging examination” in claim 4, “outputting an alert indicative of the determined complexity of the upcoming imaging examinations includes: outputting the alert indicating that an upcoming imaging exaction will be complex on an electronic processing device operable by a local operator performing the upcoming imaging [examination]” in claim 15, “the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: receive feedback from the LO on the complexity at an end of the imaging examination” in claim 16, “outputting an alert indicative of the determined complexity of the upcoming imaging examinations includes: outputting the alert indicating that an upcoming imaging exaction will be complex on a remote electronic processing device operable by a remote expert (RE) monitoring the upcoming imaging examination” in claim 17, “the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: receive feedback from the RE on the complexity at an end of the imaging examination” in claim 18, and “the alert is output prior to beginning upcoming imaging examinations” in claim 19 merely represent data outputting incidental to the primary process of the claim as a whole (i.e., determining the updated schedule of medical imaging examinations) and thus those limitations are merely nominal or tangential additions to the associated claims under MPEP 2106.05(g). Each claim as a whole recites the one or more processors, the non-transitory computer readable medium, and/or the electronic processing device at a high level of generality, with their functions claimed in a merely generic manner such that each claim as a whole represents the well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions of the one or more processors, the non-transitory computer readable medium, and/or the electronic processing device for automatically determining the updated schedule of medical imaging examinations based on the complexity of the upcoming medical examination and the likelihood that the local operator performing the upcoming medical imaging examination will require assistance from the remote expert. For the reasons stated under Step 2A Prong Two, the Office finds that the claim as a whole does not recite a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve an outcome. Evidence of processors automatically determining the complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination to update a schedule being well-understood, routine and conventional functions is found in Hader (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0093285 A1).
Therefore, claims 2 – 4 and 6 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Starobinets (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0158946 A1) in view of Reiner (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0312963 A1) and Hader (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0093285 A1).
Regarding independent claims 1, 5, and 23, Starobinets teaches the limitations of representative claim 1 identified in bold as:
A system for optimizing medical imaging examinations (Paragraphs [0025] and [0032] of Starobinets. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a system for optimizing medical imaging examinations” reads on the system in Starobinets (Paragraphs [0025] and [0032]) for independently assessing contrast injector settings, and alerting if inaccurate or inappropriate settings are detected, is described in the illustrative context of an apparatus for providing assistance from a remote operator RO (or super-tech) to a local operator LO.), the system comprising:
one or more processors configured to access one or more data streams of an imaging bay including at least (i) a screen mirroring data stream comprising content presented on a controller display and (ii) a communication pathway connecting the imaging bay and at least some of the one or more processors (Paragraph [0025], [0033], [0036], and [0039] of Starobinets. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “one or more processors configured to access one or more data streams of an imaging bay including at least (i) a screen mirroring data stream comprising content presented on a controller display” reads on the electronic processor in Starobinets (Paragraph [0025], [0033], [0036], and [0039] , see also [0037] and [0029] – [0030]) stationed at the remote work station and being used by the remote operator RO, such as senior technician (i.e. “super-tech”). The remote workstation (i.e., having the electronic processor) is in communication with multiple medical bays via a communication link. A screen mirroring stream is sent from the imaging device controller to the remote workstation (i.e., having the electronic processor) via the communication link. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “(ii) a communication pathway connecting the imaging bay and at least some of the one or more processors” reads on the natural language communication pathway in Starobinets (Paragraph [0036], see also [0040]) between the imaging device controller to the remote workstation (i.e., having the electronic processor) via the communication link and providing verbal and/or textual communication between the local operator and the remote operator.
assess a complexity of an upcoming medical imaging examination identified by a scheduler by:
acquiring data related to the upcoming medical imaging examination, the data comprising one or more of time taken to complete preparation and scanning activities associated with the upcoming medical imaging examination, whether contrast is used, what type of contrast is used, body part to be imaged, patient demographics, idle time between sequences, likelihood of repeated or additional imaging sequences, or image quality;
determining the complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination based on a weighted combination of a plurality of complexity scores respectively derived from the acquired data; and
determining, based on the complexity, a likelihood that a local operator performing the medical imaging examination will require assistance from a remote expert;
output an alert indicative of the determined complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination and the likelihood that the local operator will require assistance from the remote expert; and
update the scheduler comprising a schedule of medical imaging examinations based on the determined complexity for the upcoming medical imaging examination.
Starobinets does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Reiner teaches the limitation identified in bold as “assess a complexity of an upcoming medical imaging examination identified by a scheduler by” (Paragraphs [0173] and [0315] – [0316] of Reiner. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “assess a complexity of an upcoming medical imaging examination by a scheduler” reads on the activity in Reiner (Paragraphs [0173] and [0315] – [0316]) of calculating a comprehensive or pooled PWI score(i.e., the complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination).).
Starobinets does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Reiner teaches the limitation identified in bold as “acquiring data related to the upcoming medical imaging examination, the data comprising one or more of time taken to complete preparation and scanning activities associated with the upcoming medical imaging examination, whether contrast is used, what type of contrast is used, body part to be imaged, patient demographics, idle time between sequences, likelihood of repeated or additional imaging sequences, or image quality” (Paragraphs [0011] – [0015], [0085] – [0087], and [0143] – [0147] of Reiner. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “acquiring data related to the upcoming medical imaging examination, the data comprising one or more of time taken to complete preparation and scanning activities associated with the upcoming medical imaging examination, whether contrast is used, what type of contrast is used, body part to be imaged, patient demographics, idle time between sequences, likelihood of repeated or additional imaging sequences, or image quality” reads on the activity in Reiner (Paragraphs [0011] – [0015], [0085] – [0087], and [0143] – [0147]) of obtaining or pooling data, regarding human computer actions and workflow-related variables, from other sources that have been recorded on at least one accessible database, e.g., PACS, RIS, EMR, Imaging Modality, CPOE, Electronic Auditing Tool, and QA Scorecards. Variables within a Medical Imaging workflow may include imaging modality, anatomic region being imaged, contrast administration, image processing/reconstructions, patient profile, patient physical characteristics (e.g. size), correlating imaging data, correlating clinical data (lab, pathology, testing), medical history, clinical indication, image quality, and decision support.).
Starobinets does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Reiner teaches the limitations identified in bold as “determining the complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination based on a weighted combination of a plurality of complexity scores respectively derived from the acquired data,” “determining, based on the complexity, a likelihood that a local operator performing the medical imaging examination will require assistance from a remote expert,” and ““update the scheduler comprising a schedule of medical imaging examinations based on the determined complexity for the upcoming medical imaging examination” (Paragraphs [0085] – [0087], [0156], and [0315] – [0316] of Reiner. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretations of “determining the complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination based on a weighted combination of a plurality of complexity scores respectively derived from the acquired data,” “the complexity," and “the determined complexity for the upcoming medical imaging examination” read on the activity in Reiner (Paragraphs [0156], and [0315] – [0316], see also [0109]) of calculating comprehensive or pooled Productivity Workflow Index (PWI) score (i.e., the complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination) representing a compilation (summation) of individually weighted PWI profile scores (and their various components) determined by assigning weighted values to particular obtained or pooled data, i.e., acquired data. The PWI includes information regarding an estimated completion time for a workflow process (i.e., the upcoming medical imaging examination).).
Starobinets does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Hader teaches the limitation identified in bold as “determining, based on the complexity, a likelihood that a local operator performing the medical imaging examination will require assistance from a remote expert” and “output an alert indicative of the determined complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination and the likelihood that the local operator will require assistance from the remote expert” (Paragraphs [0173], [0177], and [0187] of Hader. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretations of “determining … a likelihood that a local operator performing the medical imaging examination will require assistance from a remote expert” and “the likelihood that the local operator will require assistance from the remote expert “ read on the activities in Hader (Paragraphs [0173], [0177], and [0187]) of scheduling for and assigning expert operators to more than one imaging procedure in parallel according to the needs defined by the complexity of the planned imaging procedure. The Office has determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art of computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing would understand that the needs defined by the complexity of the planned imaging procedure include the needs to: (1) schedule and assign the expert operator to the imaging procedure when the complexity or difficulty of the planned imaging procedure exceeds the expertise of the local operator; and (2) not schedule or assign the expert operator to the imaging procedure when the complexity or difficulty of the planned imaging procedure does not exceed the expertise of the local operator, such that the system in Hader increases examination throughput “with less resources and accelerates amortization of medical devices.”).
Starobinets does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Reiner teaches the limitation identified in bold as “output an alert indicative of the determined complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination and the likelihood that the local operator will require assistance from the remote expert” (Paragraphs [0156] of Reiner. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “output an alert indicative of the determined complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination” reads on the activity in Reiner (Paragraph [0156]) of displaying a pacer to alert the user of the estimated completion time information (i.e., information included in the determined complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination.).
Starobinets does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Hader teaches the limitation identified in bold as “update the scheduler comprising a schedule of medical imaging examinations based on the determined complexity for the upcoming medical imaging examination” (Paragraphs [0146] and [0148] of Hader. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “update the scheduler comprising a schedule of medical imaging examinations” reads on the activity in Hader (Paragraphs [0146] and [0148]) of sending update data on the duration of a current medical imaging procedure IMP to the scheduling unit to provide an updated electronic schedule or plan SCH.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing to modify the system and method of Starobinets to: include the one or more processors configured to assess a complexity of an upcoming medical imaging examination identified by a scheduler by: the activity of acquiring data related to the upcoming medical imaging examination, the data comprising one or more of time taken to complete preparation and scanning activities associated with the upcoming medical imaging examination, whether contrast is used, what type of contrast is used, body part to be imaged, patient demographics, idle time between sequences, likelihood of repeated or additional imaging sequences, or image quality, the activity of determining the complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination based on a weighted combination of a plurality of complexity scores respectively derived from the acquired data, the activity of determining the complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination based on a weighted combination of a plurality of complexity scores respectively derived from the acquired data, the activity of determining, based on the complexity, a likelihood that a local operator performing the medical imaging examination will require assistance from a remote expert; and the activity of outputting an alert indicative of the determined complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination and the likelihood that the local operator will require assistance from the remote expert,” as taught by Reiner (Paragraphs [0011] – [0015], [0085] – [0087], [0143] – [0148], [0156], [0173] and [0315] – [0316]), in order to determine appropriate resource allocation including new technology purchase, staffing levels, and exam scheduling (Paragraphs [0218] – [0222], see also [0010] of Reiner); and implement the activity of determining, based on the complexity, a likelihood that a local operator performing the medical imaging examination will require assistance from a remote expert, the activity of outputting an alert indicative of the determined complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination and the likelihood that the local operator will require assistance from the remote expert, and the activity of updating the scheduler comprising a schedule of medical imaging examinations based on the determined complexity for the upcoming medical imaging examination, as taught by Hader (Paragraphs [0146], [0148], [0173], [0177], and [0187]) in order to provide expert staff input, e.g., regarding planning the required imaging protocol or patient positioning when on-site experienced technologists or radiographers may be unavailable and further to improve efficiency by preventing valuable working time of a technical expert from being used for merely time-consuming measurements, e.g., his physical presence for just monitoring the patient in the course of a measurement or measurements as such (Paragraphs . [0005] – [0007[ of Hader).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Starobinets as modified by Reiner and Hader and applied to an associated one of claims 1 and 5 teaches the limitations of representative claim 2 identified in bold as:
“wherein determining the complexity of the upcoming one or more imaging examinations includes:” (Paragraphs [0011] – [0015], [0085] – [0087], and [0143] – [0147] of Reiner. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “determining the complexity of the upcoming one or more imaging examinations includes” reads on the activity in Reiner (Paragraphs [0011] – [0015], [0085] – [0087], and [0143] – [0147]) of determining Productivity Workflow Index (PWI) scores by assigning weighted values to the pooled data regarding human computer actions by a user and workflow-related variables from an electronic database.);
“partitioning data related to historical imaging examinations into one or more classes based on one or more criterion; and” (Paragraphs [0085] – [0087], [0109], [0111], and [0348] of Reiner. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “partitioning data related to historical imaging examinations into one or more classes based on one or more criterion” reads on the activity in Reiner (Paragraphs [0085] – [0087], [0109], [0111], and [0348]) of presenting an automated PWI score based on historical data specific the task and the individual end-user’s profile.);
“generating performance statistics for the partitioned historical imaging examinations in each class” (Paragraphs [0085] – [0087], [0109], [0111], and [0348] of Reiner. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “generating performance statistics for the partitioned historical imaging examinations in each class” reads on the activity in Reiner (Paragraphs [0085] – [0087], [0109], [0111], and [0348]) of providing the end-user with reference values of the anticipated task complexity and time requirements, with the reference values providing comparable PWI scores for other end-users performing the same task.);
“partitioning data related one or more current imaging examinations into one or more classes based on the one or more criterion” (Paragraphs [0349] – [0350] of Reiner. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “partitioning data related one or more current imaging examinations into one or more classes based on the one or more criterion” reads on the activity in Reiner (Paragraphs [0349] – [0350]) of calculating the actual PWI score at the end of task completion.);
“applying the generated performance statistics for the partitioned historical imaging examinations to the one or more current imaging examinations in a common class” (Paragraphs [0085] – [0087], [0109], [0111], and [0348] – [0350] of Reiner. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “applying the generated performance statistics for the partitioned historical imaging examinations to the one or more current imaging examinations in a common class” reads on the activity in Reiner (Paragraphs [0085] – [0087], [0109], [0111], and [0348] – [0350]) of comparing the reference values (i.e., comparable PWI scores for other end-users performing the same task) to the actual PWI score.); and
“determining the complexity of the one or more current imaging examinations based on the generated performance statistics” (Paragraphs [0085] – [0087], [0109], [0111], and [0348] – [0350] of Reiner. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “applying the generated performance statistics for the partitioned historical imaging examinations to the one or more current imaging examinations in a common class” reads on the activity in Reiner (Paragraphs [0085] – [0087], [0109], [0111], and [0348] – [0350]) of calculating the actual PWI score at the end of task completion.).
Regarding claim 3, Starobinets as modified by Reiner and Hader and applied to claim 1 teaches the limitations identified in bold as “the one or more processors are further configured to: generate a prediction of one or more factors contributing to the determined complexity of the upcoming imaging examinations” (Paragraphs [0087] – [0135] of Reiner. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the one or more processors are further configured to: generate a prediction of one or more factors contributing to the determined complexity of the upcoming imaging examinations” reads on the factors in Reiner (Paragraphs [0087] – [0135]) taken into account with respect to each workflow-related variable pooled with human computer actions to determine Productivity Workflow Index.).
Regarding claims 4, Starobinets as modified by Reiner and Hader and applied to claim 1 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “outputting an alert indicative of the determined complexity of the upcoming imaging examinations includes: outputting the alert indicating that an upcoming imaging exaction will be complex on an electronic processing device operable by a local operator performing the upcoming imaging examination” (Paragraph [0183] of Reiner. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “outputting an alert indicative of the determined complexity of the upcoming imaging examinations includes: outputting the alert indicating that an upcoming imaging exaction will be complex on an electronic processing device operable by a local operator performing the upcoming imaging examination” reads on the activity in Reiner (Paragraph [0183]) of providing, on a computer queried by an operator, a measure of exam complexity and time requirements.).
Regarding claim 6, Starobinets as modified by Reiner and Hader and applied to an associated one of claims Reiner teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the acquired data includes one or more of a modality of the medical imaging device, an imaged anatomy, and specific imaging sequences specified in an imaging examination card” (Paragraphs [0085] – [0087] and [0116] of Reiner. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the acquired data includes one or more of a modality of the medical imaging device an imaged anatomy, and specific imaging sequences specified in an imaging examination card” reads on the acquisition device (modality, e.g. CT scanner) in Reiner (Paragraphs [0085] – [0087] and [0116]) as an example of a type of factor that may be taken into account with respect to each workflow related variables in a Medical Imaging workflow, where the PWI score is determined from pooling data regarding human computer actions by a user and workflow-related variables.).
Regarding claim 7, Starobinets as modified by Reiner and Hader and applied to claim 6 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the acquired data further includes one or more information on historical imaging examinations, wherein the one or more information includes one or more of total length, time for each imaging examination phase, contrast agent delivery, patient unloading, and idle time” (Paragraphs [0111] and [0127] of Reiner. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the acquired data further includes one or more information on historical imaging examinations, wherein the one or more information includes one or more of total length, time for each imaging examination phase, contrast agent delivery, patient unloading, and idle time” reads on the workflow related variables in Reiner (Paragraphs [0111] and [0127]) including historical imaging exams and contrast administration.).
Regarding claim 8, Starobinets as modified by Reiner and Hader and applied to claim 5 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the acquired data is acquired from one or more data sources including HL7 messages, an examination order placed by a referring physician, an examination card, a patient electronic medical record, and imaging technician education and experience records” (Paragraph [0052] of Starobinets. Paragraphs [0137], [0162], and [0185] of Reiner. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the acquired data is acquired from one or more data sources including HL7 messages, an examination order placed by a referring physician, an examination card, a patient electronic medical record, and imaging technician education and experience records” reads on the examination order in Starobinets (Paragraph [0052]) and the card, the patient electric medical record, and the radiologist’s technical, clinical, and educational factors in Reiner (Paragraphs [0137], [0162], and [0185]).).
Regarding claim 10, Starobinets as modified by Reiner and Hader and applied to claim 9 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the one or more criterion include examination type, modality, imaging sequences, patient characteristics, an imaging technologist performing the examination, or a technician's class segmented by experience” (Paragraphs [0085] – [0087] and [0222] of Reiner. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the one or more criterion include examination type, modality, imaging sequences, patient characteristics, an imaging technologist performing the examination, or a technician's class segmented by experience” reads on factors in Reiner (Paragraphs [0085] – [0087] and [0222]) taken into account with workflow related variables, with the factors including acquisition device (modality, e.g. CT scanner), number of sequences, patient profile, and clinical, technologist, and patient-specific differences.).
Claims 11 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Starobinets as modified by Reiner and Hader and applied to claim 9, and further in view of Zaktuny (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0290491 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Starobinets as modified by Reiner and Hader and applied to claim 9 does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Zaktuny teaches the limitations identified in bold as “the performance statistics include one or more of average total examination time, average time for each phase, average idle time between successive phases, average number of rescans, average number of consultations with a remote expert, and average obtained image quality” (Paragraphs [0030] – [0032] of Zaktuny. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the performance statistics include one or more of average total examination time, average time for each phase, average idle time between successive phases, average number of rescans, average number of consultations with a remote expert, and average obtained image quality” reads on the average time needed to perform the corresponding exam/procedure in Zaktuny (Paragraphs [0030] – [0032]).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computer-aided diagnosis at the time of filing to modify the system and method of Starobinets as modified by Reiner and Hader, such that the performance statistics include one or more of average total examination time, average time for each phase, average idle time between successive phases, average number of rescans, average number of consultations with a remote expert, and average obtained image quality, as taught by Zaktuny (Paragraphs [0030] – [0032]), in order to accurately reflect the level and complexity of work performed by the technologist in imaging exams/procedures (Paragraph [0003] of Zaktuny).
Regarding claim 12, Starobinets as modified by Reiner and Hader and Zaktuny and applied to claim 11 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the instruction, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: generate a prediction of one or more factors contributing to the determined complexity of the upcoming imaging examinations” (Paragraphs [0087] – [0135] of Reiner. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the instruction, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: generate a prediction of one or more factors contributing to the determined complexity of the upcoming imaging examinations” reads on the factors in Reiner (Paragraphs [0087] – [0135]) taken into account with respect to each workflow-related variable pooled with human computer actions to determine Productivity Workflow Index.).
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the cited art appears to explicitly disclose the limitations of “determine required data to determine the complexity that is missing; and assign an average data value for the missing required data” in claim 13. Claims 14 – 22 depend directly or indirectly from claim 13 and include the subject matter of claim 13.
Claims 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of claim 13 and independent claims 1, 5, and/or 23 in order to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (Third Paragraph on Page 10 of the Amendment filed June 23, 2026) and amendment regarding the objection to claims 2, 4, and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claims 2, 4, and 18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments (Fourth Paragraph on Page 10 of the Amendment filed June 23, 2026) and amendment regarding the rejection of claim 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 7 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments (Fifth Paragraph on Page 10 to Third Paragraph on Page 15 of the Amendment filed June 23, 2026) regarding the rejection of claims 1 – 21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
In the Amendment (Third Paragraph on Page 11 to Third Paragraph on Page 12), Applicant argued that one element of amended claim 1 (update the scheduler comprising a schedule of medical imaging examinations based on the determined complexity for the upcoming medical imaging examination) is not an abstract idea falling in the “mental process” grouping. However, Applicant was not responsive to the analysis of claim 1 under Step 2A, Prong One in the rejection (Paragraph 11 on Page 6 of the Office Action dated March 30, 2026), which stated that claim 1 recites a combination of other elements that may be practically performed in the human mind and thus represent an abstract idea falling in the “mental process” grouping. The elements of amended claim 1 that represent a mental process include “optimizing medical imaging examinations,” “assess a complexity of an upcoming medical imaging examination identified by a scheduler,” “determining the complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination based on a weighted combination of a plurality of complexity scores respectively derived from the acquired data,” and “determining, based on the complexity, a likelihood that a local operator performing the medical imaging examination will require assistance from a remote expert.” These limitations represent the mental process of determining the updated schedule of medical imaging examinations based on the complexity of an upcoming medical imaging examination and the likelihood that the local operator performing the medical imaging examination will require assistance from a remote expert. Accordingly, the Office finds that the claims recite judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
In the Amendment (Third Paragraph on Page 11 to Third Paragraph on Page 12), Applicant argued: “The additional limitations of amended claim 1 address such challenges by updating the scheduler based on a specific method of determining complexity of the examinations and likelihood that local operators performing the examinations will require assistance from the remote expert, so that examinations and time for supporting the examinations are appropriately allocated to the remote expert.” The Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant (Third Paragraph on Page 11 to Third Paragraph on Page 12 of the Amendment) appears to argue that amended claim 1 recites an additional limitation (beyond the mental process) of “update the scheduler comprising a schedule of medical imaging examinations based on the determined complexity for the upcoming medical imaging examination.” Applicant (Third Paragraph on Page 14 of the Amendment) further contended, without explanation, that the additional limitations of amended claim 1 apply a complexity criteria within a medical imaging examination workflow to update operation of the scheduler to address scheduling operations in the field of medical imaging examinations. For the reasons stated in the body of this Final Office Action, the claim as a whole does not recite a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve an outcome, and thus the Office finds that the claim as a whole does not improve any other technology or technical field under Step 2A, Prong Two.
In the Amendment (Third Paragraph on Page 11 to Third Paragraph on Page 12), Applicant argued: “The additional limitations of amended claim 1 address such challenges by updating the scheduler based on a specific method of determining complexity of the examinations and likelihood that local operators performing the examinations will require assistance from the remote expert, so that examinations and time for supporting the examinations are appropriately allocated to the remote expert.” The Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant (Last Paragraph on Page 14 to Second Paragraph on Page 15 of the Amendment) argued: “The additional limitations of claim 1 of ‘update the scheduler comprising a schedule of medical imaging examinations based on the determined complexity for the upcoming medical imaging examination’ provides improved scheduling operations of medical imaging examinations by determining and accounting for complexity of the examinations and likelihood that local operators performing the examinations will require assistance, so that examinations and time for supporting the examinations are appropriately allocated to a remote expert. Such improved operations of medical imaging examinations is not a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in this technical field.” However, for the reasons stated in the body of this Final Office Action, the Office finds that the claim as a whole does not recite a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve an outcome. Evidence of processors automatically determining the complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination to update a schedule being well-understood, routine and conventional functions is found in Hader (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0093285 A1). For the reasons stated in the body of this Final Office Action, the claim as a whole recites one or more processors performing functions at a high level of generality claimed in a generic manner, and thus the Office finds that the claim as a whole does represents well-understood, routine and conventional functions of processors automatically determining the complexity of the upcoming medical imaging examination to update a schedule under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant's arguments (Fourth Paragraph on Page 15 to First Paragraph on Page 18 of the Amendment filed June 23, 2026) regarding the rejection of claims 1 – 21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT CAESAR ILAGAN whose telephone number is (703) 756-1639. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00pm.
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, Jason B. Dunham, can be reached on (571) 272-8109. 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.
/V.C.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/DEVIN C HEIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights