DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the application filed on 9/30/24. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The IDS filed on 10/28/24 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites “a computer-readable medium.”
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. (See MPEP 2106 II and 2106.03 (I) ). When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500. F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter).
A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory" to the claim.
Claims 1-20 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.
35 USC 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. As explained by the courts, these “four categories together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of Section 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Applicant’s claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 1-17 are drawn to a method, and claim 20 is drawn to a system. Although claims 18-19 are not drawn to statutory subject matter, and are not patent eligible under Step 1, the claims will be further analyzed under step 2 in the interest of compact prosecution.
Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not complete the eligibility analysis. Claims drawn only to an abstract idea, a natural phenomenon, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection. As described in MPEP 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l,134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
In 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) prepared revised guidance (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility. The framework for this revised guidance, which sets forth the procedures for determining whether a patent claim or patent application claim is directed to a judicial exception (laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas), is described in MPEP sections 2106.03 and 2106.04.
As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance explains that abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. Moreover, this guidance explains that a patent claim or patent application claim that recites a judicial exception is not ‘‘directed to’’ the judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception. A claim that recites a judicial exception, but is not integrated into a practical application, is directed to the judicial exception under Step 2A and must then be evaluated under Step 2B (inventive concept) to determine the subject matter eligibility of the claim.
Step 2A asks: Does the claim recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? (Prong One) If so, is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception? (Prong Two) A claim recites a judicial exception when a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms “set forth” and “describe” are thus both equated with “recite”, their different language is intended to indicate that there are different ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr set forth a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, while the claims in Mayo set forth laws of nature in the wherein clause, meaning that the claims in those cases contained discrete claim language that was identifiable as a judicial exception. The claims in Alice Corp., however, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words “intermediated” or “settlement.” A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
In the instant case, claims 1-20 recite(s) a method and system for certain methods of organizing human activities, which is subject matter that falls within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas described in MPEP 2106.04 (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) Certain methods of organizing human activities includes fundamental economic practices, like insurance; commercial interactions (i.e. legal obligations, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations). Organizing human activity also encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.) The recited method and system are drawn to developing, performing and documenting a medical data processing workflow. (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people)
Claims 1, 18, and 20 recite a method, product and system for:
providing a medical data processing workflow comprising a set of configurable processing operations, wherein the medical data processing workflow is applied to process medical imaging data;
configuring one or more processing operations of the set of configurable processing operations based on user-defined criteria, wherein the user-defined criteria comprises at least one of: a selection of at least one processing operation from a plurality of predefined processing operations, an indication of an adjustment of one or more parameters associated with the selected processing operation, or an indication of a user-defined processing operation;
facilitating execution of the set of configurable processing operations on the medical imaging data to generate an output, wherein the execution includes performing a plurality of tasks, the plurality of tasks comprising at least one computer-automated task and at least one operator-assisted task, wherein each task of the plurality of tasks results in at least one of a transformation or an annotation of at least a portion of the medical imaging data;
generating a record for each task of the plurality of tasks, wherein each record includes a unique identifier corresponding to the task and details of a respective transformation or annotation applied to the medical imaging data; and
generating a traceability report based on the plurality of records, wherein the traceability report provides a complete record of all processing operations performed on the medical imaging data, including a sequence of operations, unique identifiers for each operation, details of any transformation or annotation applied to the medical imaging data, and identification of the operator responsible for each task, such that the report enables the tracing of each modification or annotation back to its corresponding step in the medical data processing workflow, ensuring that the entire data processing path is documented and verifiable.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim language does not recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); see also MPEP 2106.05(a)(I-II)). Moreover, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claimed invention does not: apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); or apply or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment see MPEP 2106.05(e). (Considerations for integration into a practical application in Step 2A, prong two and for recitation of significantly more than the judicial exception in Step 2B)
While abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patenting by themselves, claims that integrate these exceptions into an inventive concept are thereby transformed into patent-eligible inventions. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (2012)). Thus, the second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Id. An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting “the Government’s invitation to substitute Sections 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under Section 101”). As made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the Section 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp.,838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9).
As described in MPEP 2106.05, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)). Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 18 and 20 recites additional limitation(s), including: a computer-readable medium storing instructions; one or more processors. These additional components is/are generic components performing conventional functions that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
To support the finding of the identified features being generic and conventional, the generic nature of the computer system used to carryout steps of the recited method is underscored by the system description in the instant application, which discloses: “These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, a graphics processing unit (GPU), or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer, a graphics processing unit, or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the block or blocks " (par. 379 of PG-Pub for the instant application) The disclosure also states: “The program code may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer.” (par. 378)
Because Applicant’s claimed invention recites a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself, the claimed invention is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-17 are dependent from Claim 1 and include(s) all the limitations of claim(s) 1. However, the additional limitations of the claims 2-17 fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional limitations further define the abstract idea with additional steps or details regarding data types; or additional steps which amount to insignificant extra solution activities. Therefore, claim(s) 2-17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 19 is dependent from Claim 18 and include(s) all the limitations of claim(s) 18. However, the additional limitations of the claim 19 fails to recite significantly more than the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional limitations further define the abstract idea with additional steps or details regarding data types; or additional steps which amount to insignificant extra solution activities. Therefore, claim(s) 19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mathur et al (US 20210158939 A1)
Claims 1, 18, and 20. Mathur teaches system including a computer-readable medium storing instructions that, (par. 227-228) when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (par. 78) to perform a method for managing a configurable medical data processing workflow, the method comprising:
providing a medical data processing workflow comprising a set of configurable processing operations, (par. 9, par. 16) wherein the medical data processing workflow is applied to process medical imaging data; (Fig. 4; par. 123- executing workflow instructions to analyze a medical image and)
configuring one or more processing operations of the set of configurable processing operations based on user-defined criteria, wherein the user-defined criteria comprises at least one of: a selection of at least one processing operation from a plurality of predefined processing operations, or an indication of an adjustment of one or more parameters associated with the selected processing operation, or an indication of a user-defined processing operation; (par. 123: the orchestration conductor component 112 can select a workflow included in the workflow and task registry data 124 that is applicable to the medical image based on the image type, modality, body part depicted, etc., and one or more requirements for input images of the workflows). At 406, the system can execute the workflow using the medical image (e.g., using the workflow execution engine 116), including accessing the medical image inferencing model at the network accessible source (e.g., as a web-service and/or a job) and applying the medical image inferencing model to the medical image, resulting in generation of a workflow outcome result (e.g., including results of the inferencing model); par. 143- algorithms included in the list can be selected to view more detailed information for the algorithm and to configure/edit parameters for the algorithm.)
facilitating execution of the set of configurable processing operations on the medical imaging data to generate an output, wherein the execution includes performing a plurality of tasks, the plurality of tasks comprising at least one computer-automated task and at least one operator-assisted task, wherein each task of the plurality of tasks results in at least one of a transformation or an annotation of at least a portion of the medical imaging data; (par. 65- The algorithm orchestration component can be integrated as a middle layer between the medical image provider and AI model provider in order to populate the radiologist/healthcare provider end system with summary messages, findings, and/or significance of the diagnosis in addition to secondary capture with annotated overlay support provided with the respective medical images; par. 72-types of transformations/annotations performed; par. 117- hat facilitate viewing the medical images stored at the medical image storage system 306 and can optionally provide various interactive features for interacting with the images (e.g., changing perspectives, editing the images, applying annotations, etc.). For example, in some implementations, the image viewer application can provide annotation tools for annotating medical images, tools for applying and/or editing DICOM tags, and tools for reviewing/rating the medical images.)
generating a record for each task of the plurality of tasks, (par. 168-task registry)wherein each record includes a unique identifier corresponding to the task and details of a respective transformation or annotation applied to the medical imaging data; and(par. 101; par. 182-generating and storing tasks, allowing them to be named: The task registry component 524 adds the ability to employ custom task templates to define custom tasks in the system and assign them a name. Custom tasks can be directly selected via the task configuration pop-up window (See FIG. 11J and pop-up window 1118), thereby minimizing the amount of coding knowledge (e.g., to be able to determine the correct request method, input the request URL and header for example) and user input needed during workflow creation; See also par. 193)
generating a traceability report based on the plurality of records, wherein the traceability report provides a complete record of all processing operations performed on the medical imaging data, including a sequence of operations, unique identifiers for each operation, details of any transformation or annotation applied to the medical imaging data, and identification of the operator responsible for each task, such that the report enables the tracing of each modification or annotation back to its corresponding step in the medical data processing workflow, ensuring that the entire data processing path is documented and verifiable. (par. 193-196-activity logging component; par. 196- The activity management component 562 can further provide administers access to activity information tracked and logged by the activity logging component 564 via the algorithm orchestration management application. In some embodiments, the activity logging component 564 can generate activity logs for each received image processing request 106 that can be reviewed/viewed by the administrators to facilitate monitoring and auditing the system. An activity log for an image processing request can include any of the activity information discussed above. For example, an activity log for an image processing request can identify the image processing request (e.g., via an ID number or the like assigned to the request by the algorithm orchestration component 112), the time/date when the request was received, the system/device from which it was received, the workflows executed, the status of the workflows, any execution errors detected,)
claim 2. Mathur teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the set of configurable processing operations and user-defined criteria form an ontology, the ontology comprising a structured framework that defines relationships between data entities. (par. 81- These image provider systems/device 102 can comprise different types of data sources that are provided by the same entity/organization that owns/operates the algorithm orchestration component 110 as well as provided by various different third party or external entities/organizations)
claims 3 and 19 Mathur teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the configuring of the one or more processing operations comprises user-configuration through modular low-code or no-code interaction, the modular low-code or no-code interaction including graphical user interface elements associated with modules of an ontology, enabling selection and/or adjustment of workflow operations without requiring detailed coding. (par. 182- custom tasks can be directly selected via the task configuration pop-up window (See FIG. 11J and pop-up window 1118), thereby minimizing the amount of coding knowledge (e.g., to be able to determine the correct request method, input the request URL and header for example) and user input needed during workflow creation).
Claim 4. Mathur teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each configurable processing operation is assigned a universally unique identifier (UUID) and is stored as a reusable configuration, such that the processing operation can be reapplied in subsequent workflows. (par. 100-101: Regardless of the location where the workflow files are stored, each workflow can be identified by a unique title, name or workflow identifier (ID). The respective workflows identified and/or included in the workflow and task registry data 124 can also include or be associated with information that describes the workflow (e.g., a summary of the workflow) and provides relevant information that identifies or indicates the medical images that the workflow is applicable to)
Claim 5. Mathur teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a complete set of user-configurations that form the medical data processing workflow is assigned a universally unique identifier (UUID), enabling a complete version of the medical data processing workflow to be saved and reused in future instances of medical data processing. (par. 100-101: Regardless of the location where the workflow files are stored, each workflow can be identified by a unique title, name or workflow identifier (ID). The respective workflows identified and/or included in the workflow and task registry data 124 can also include or be associated with information that describes the workflow (e.g., a summary of the workflow) and provides relevant information that identifies or indicates the medical images that the workflow is applicable to. For example, in various embodiments, the workflows can be associated with metadata tags that identify attributes of medical images capable of being processed by the workflow. In some embodiments, each workflow identified or included in the workflow and task registry data 124 can also include or be associated with information that identifies the creator (or creators) of the workflow, the one or more tasks/algorithms included therein, the timing/date when the workflow was created and/or last updated, and various other relevant information regarding the workflow.)
Claim 6 Mathur teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising causing a display to present graphical user interface elements, each graphical user interface element corresponding to a particular configurable processing operation from the set of configurable processing operations, wherein the graphical user interface elements enable selection, adjustment of parameters, or definition of a user-defined processing operation for inclusion in the medical data processing workflow. (par. 68-69; par. 113)
Claim 7. Mathur teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising facilitating human interaction with the medical data processing workflow through graphical user interface elements, wherein the human interaction includes at least one of reviewing, annotating, or adjusting the configurable processing operations based on clinical or operational criteria, and wherein the human interaction is recorded as part of the traceability report. (par. 68-69; par. 117- the image viewer application can provide annotation tools for annotating medical images, tools for applying and/or editing DICOM tags, and tools for reviewing/rating the medical images. The image viewer application 304 can also be configured to present the clinician with the request results and status notification 108. In some embodiments, the image viewer application 304 can also provide for receiving user input (e.g., from the clinician such as a radiologist or the like) for initiating/submitting an image processing request 106.)
Claim 8. Mathur teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the traceability report further includes audit logs of user interactions, wherein each interaction is logged with a unique identifier and user credentials for full accountability. (par. 134; par. 193-196-activity logging component; par. 196- The activity management component 562 can further provide administers access to activity information tracked and logged by the activity logging component 564 via the algorithm orchestration management application. In some embodiments, the activity logging component 564 can generate activity logs for each received image processing request 106 that can be reviewed/viewed by the administrators to facilitate monitoring and auditing the system. An activity log for an image processing request can include any of the activity information discussed above. For example, an activity log for an image processing request can identify the image processing request (e.g., via an ID number or the like assigned to the request by the algorithm orchestration component 112), the time/date when the request was received, the system/device from which it was received, the workflows executed, the status of the workflows, any execution errors detected)
Claim 9. Mathur discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising assigning a universally unique identifier (UUID) to the medical imaging data at an initial stage of the workflow, wherein at each subsequent step of the configurable processing workflow, as the data is transformed, annotated, or divided into sub-portions, each resulting portion or subset of the data is assigned an additional UUID, such that the data forms a branching sequence with a unique identifier at each branch, providing traceability for every division and modification of the data throughout the workflow. (par. 120-transfer and review of images for clinicians; par. 193-196)
Claim 10. Mathur discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the medical data processing workflow is applied to evaluate a set of prospective biomarkers, wherein the medical data processing workflow comprises computing a set of metrics associated with a set of locations within an image or a test result, associating the metrics with at least one record of patient metadata, and developing a classification schema for sorting patients by categories of the metadata value using a combination of one or more metrics associated with one or more locations in the test region of the patient. (par. 140- the configuration component 522 can be used to set/adjust threshold parameters, including threshold for criticality or priority, clinical relevance, diagnostic thresholds, probability thresholds, confidence score thresholds, and the like. For instance, with respect to diagnostic models, the configuration comment 522 can allow an administrator to set/adjust the confidence score threshold of the model for classifying a positive or negative diagnosis.)
Claim 11. Mathur teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the medical data processing workflow comprises computing a set metrics, reducing the set of metrics to a predefined set of one or more biomarkers, applying a candidate patient data set to the biomarker workflow, and classifying the candidate patient eligibility for participation in a clinic trial or eligibility to receive a clinical treatment. (par. 140)
Claim 12. Mathur teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the medical data processing workflow is configured for reading medical data in a clinical research study or a clinical trial. (par. 92)
Claim 13. Mathur teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the medical data processing workflow comprises automatedly creating masked and randomized batches of images, annotating the masked and randomized batches of images, automatedly computing a set of metrics from the images in the masked and randomized batches, and automatedly creating a report on computed set of metrics. (par. 200; par. 215)
Claim 14. Mathur teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one operator-assisted task comprises at least one of selecting, adjusting, or confirming processing operations. (par. 140-141)
Claim 15. Mathur teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the traceability report further comprises a hierarchical structure that organizes each task of the plurality of tasks and any derived sub-tasks based on a parent-child relationship, wherein each task and sub-task is assigned a universally unique identifier, such that the hierarchical structure enables tracking and tracing of the processing operations across multiple branches within the medical data processing workflow. (par. 157-158; par. 193-194)
Claim 16. Mathur teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the universally unique identifier assigned to each task of the plurality of tasks within the medical data processing workflow is linked to subsequent sub-tasks generated from the transformation or annotation of the medical imaging data, such that a hierarchical structure of the traceability report provides a detailed, reproducible path of all tasks and sub-tasks performed within the workflow. (par. 193-194)
Claim 17. Mathur teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the hierarchical structure of the traceability report further enables recreation of a complete medical data processing workflow, such that by following the universally unique identifiers and recorded sequence of tasks, the medical data processing operations can be reproduced to generate an output identical to the original workflow execution. par. 193-196-activity logging component; par. 196- The activity management component 562 can further provide administers access to activity information tracked and logged by the activity logging component 564 via the algorithm orchestration management application. In some embodiments, the activity logging component 564 can generate activity logs for each received image processing request 106 that can be reviewed/viewed by the administrators to facilitate monitoring and auditing the system. An activity log for an image processing request can include any of the activity information discussed above. For example, an activity log for an image processing request can identify the image processing request (e.g., via an ID number or the like assigned to the request by the algorithm orchestration component 112), the time/date when the request was received, the system/device from which it was received, the workflows executed, the status of the workflows, any execution errors detected,)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachel L Porter whose telephone number is (571)272-6775. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10-6:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/Rachel L. Porter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684