DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is the first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on 16 April 2025 and the preliminary amendment filed 16 April 2025.
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 16 April 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
This application claims priority of US Provisional Application No. 63/418072 filed 21 October 2022 and is a 371 filing of PCT/EP2023/078121 filed on 23 October 2023. Applicant’s claims for the benefit of this prior filed application is acknowledged.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites
retrieve information pertaining to an upcoming radiology examination of a patient including at least information identifying an imaging modality to be used in the upcoming radiology examination, information about the patient, and information obtained from a radiology examination order for the upcoming radiology examination;
based on the retrieved information, determine role-specific examination complexity metrics for respective personnel roles of a workflow for performing the upcoming radiology examination; and
provide at least one of advice or assistance to personnel assigned to fill the personnel roles of the workflow based on the determined role-specific examination complexity metrics.
The preceding recitation of the claim has had strikethroughs applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea. The remaining limitations describe a concept of collecting radiology task related information, determining a role complexity from the radiology task information, and providing guidance based on the role complexity.
This concept describes a process that a radiology manager should follow to guide and advise radiology personnel similar to the “process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) as an example of managing personal behavior in the managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people sub-grouping of methods of organizing human activity. As such, these limitation set forth a method of organizing human activity. Therefore the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus which comprises a processor and a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions readable and executable by the processor. These features are recited at an extremely high level of generality and may be interpreted as a generic computing device used to implement the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. There are no further additional elements. Because the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element which may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more. There are no further additional element. Because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 further recites determine each role-specific examination complexity metric by applying a role-specific predictive model to the retrieved information. This limitation further narrows the previously identified method of organizing human activity, but the claim continues to set forth a method of organizing human activity and recite a new abstract idea. Dependent claim 2 recites no new additional elements. The previously identified additional element does not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons indicated above. As such, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, the previously identified additional element does not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea for the same reasons indicated above. Because the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, dependent claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites the additional element of wherein the model are artificial intelligence models. This additional element amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a generic computing device. As previously noted, such additional elements do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. When considered in combination with the previously identified computing device additional element, the additional elements continue to amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a generic computing devices. As such, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior identified computing device additional element, still amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a computing device and as such does not amount to significantly more. Because the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, dependent claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 4 further recites derive role-related features from the retrieved information for each respective personnel role of the workflow; wherein each role-specific examination complexity metric is determined by applying the corresponding role-specific predictive model to the role-related features for that personnel role of the workflow. This limitation further narrows the previously identified method of organizing human activity, but the claim continues to set forth a method of organizing human activity and recite a new abstract idea. Dependent claim 4 recites no new additional elements. The previously identified additional element does not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons indicated above. As such, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, the previously identified additional element does not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea for the same reasons indicated above. Because the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, dependent claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 5 further recites wherein, for at least one personnel role of the workflow: the role-specific examination complexity metric comprises a multidimensional vector in which each dimension of the multidimensional vector contains a value indicative of role-specific complexity of the upcoming radiology examination with respect to a corresponding aspect of the upcoming radiology examination. This limitation further narrows the previously identified method of organizing human activity, but the claim continues to set forth a method of organizing human activity and recite a new abstract idea. Dependent claim 5 recites no new additional elements. The previously identified additional element does not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons indicated above. As such, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, the previously identified additional element does not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea for the same reasons indicated above. Because the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, dependent claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 6 further recites present information indicative of the role-specific examination complexity metrics . This limitation further narrows the previously identified method of organizing human activity, but the claim continues to set forth a method of organizing human activity and recite a new abstract idea. The claim further recites the additional element of presenting information on electric devices. Displaying information on an electronic device does not represent any improvement to technology, does not require any particular machine, does not effect a transformation, and does not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior additional element, only generally links the new abstract idea to a technological environment of a computing device. As such, this additional element, and the combination of additional elements, does not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application. As such, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, LeClair et al. (US 2002/0109861 A1) demonstrates (“any conventional display device used for displaying information” [0041]) that displaying information on a device was conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea. When considered in combination with the prior additional element of a computing device, the combination only generally links the new abstract idea to a technological environment of a computing device. As such the combination does not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea. Because the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, dependent claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 7 further recites present information indicative of each role-specific complexity metric . This limitation further narrows the previously identified method of organizing human activity, but the claim continues to set forth a method of organizing human activity and recite a new abstract idea. The claim further recites the additional element of presenting information on one or more electric devices. Displaying information on an electronic device does not represent any improvement to technology, does not require any particular machine, does not effect a transformation, and does not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior additional element, only generally links the new abstract idea to a technological environment of a computing device. As such, this additional element, and the combination of additional elements, does not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application. As such, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, LeClair et al. (US 2002/0109861 A1) demonstrates (“any conventional display device used for displaying information” [0041]) that displaying information on a device was conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea. When considered in combination with the prior additional element of a computing device, the combination only generally links the new abstract idea to a technological environment of a computing device. As such the combination does not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea. Because the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, dependent claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 8 further recites displaying a schedule of radiology examinations including the upcoming radiology examination . This limitation further narrows the previously identified method of organizing human activity, but the claim continues to set forth a method of organizing human activity and recite a new abstract idea. The claim further recites the additional element of presenting information on one or more electric devices. Displaying information on an electronic device does not represent any improvement to technology, does not require any particular machine, does not effect a transformation, and does not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior additional elements, only generally links the new abstract idea to a technological environment of a computing device. As such, this additional element, and the combination of additional elements, does not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application. As such, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, LeClair et al. (US 2002/0109861 A1) demonstrates (“any conventional display device used for displaying information” [0041]) that displaying information on a device was conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea. When considered in combination with the prior additional elements, the combination only generally links the new abstract idea to a technological environment of a computing device. As such the combination does not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea. Because the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, dependent claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 9 further recites predicting an assistance request by a first person assigned to fill a first personnel role of the workflow directed to a second person assigned to fill a second personnel role of the workflow; automatically generate a draft request for assistance that implements the predicted assistance request; and present the draft request for assistance . This limitation further narrows the previously identified method of organizing human activity, but the claim continues to set forth a method of organizing human activity and recite a new abstract idea. The claim further recites the additional element of presenting information on an electric device. Displaying information on an electronic device does not represent any improvement to technology, does not require any particular machine, does not effect a transformation, and does not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior additional element, only generally links the new abstract idea to a technological environment of a computing device. As such, this additional element, and the combination of additional elements, does not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application. As such, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, LeClair et al. (US 2002/0109861 A1) demonstrates (“any conventional display device used for displaying information” [0041]) that displaying information on a device was conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea. When considered in combination with the prior additional element of a computing device, the combination only generally links the new abstract idea to a technological environment of a computing device. As such the combination does not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea. Because the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, dependent claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 10 recites receive approval of the draft request for assistance via the first personThis limitation further narrows the previously identified method of organizing human activity, but the claim continues to set forth a method of organizing human activity and recite a new abstract idea. The claim further recites the additional element of receiving information via an electronic device and another additional element of presenting information on one or more electric devices. Receiving information via an electronic device does not represent any improvement to technology, does not require any particular machine, does not effect a transformation, and does not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior additional element, only generally links the new abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, this additional element does not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application. Displaying information on an electronic device does not represent any improvement to technology, does not require any particular machine, does not effect a transformation, and does not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior additional elements, only generally links the new abstract idea to a technological environment of a computing device. As such, this additional element does not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the new abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. Thus the combination of additional elements does not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application. As such, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized by the courts as a conventional computer function. As such, the additional element of receiving information via an electronic device does not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea. LeClair et al. (US 2002/0109861 A1) demonstrates (“any conventional display device used for displaying information” [0041]) that displaying information on a device was conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, the additional element of presenting information on one or more electric devices does not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea. When considered in combination, the additional elements only generally links the new abstract idea to a technological environment of a networked computing device. As such the combination does not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea. Because the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, dependent claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 11 recites predicting assistance to a first personnel role of the workflow will be provided by a second personnel role of the workflow; and automatically schedule a. This limitation further narrows the previously identified method of organizing human activity, but the claim continues to set forth a method of organizing human activity and recite a new abstract idea. The claim further recites the additional element of ab electronic call. Making an electronic call does not represent any improvement to technology, does not require any particular machine, does not effect a transformation, and does not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior additional element, only generally links the new abstract idea to a technological environment of a telephone. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the new abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. Thus the combination of additional elements does not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application. As such, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “using a telephone” was recognized by the courts (TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC) as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. As such, the additional element of making an electronic call does not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea. When considered in combination, the additional elements only generally links the new abstract idea to a technological environment of a networked computing device. As such the combination does not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea. Because the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, dependent claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 12 recites wherein the predicting of assistance includes predicting a time at which the assistance to the first personnel role of the workflow is to be provided by the second personnel role of the workflow, and the automatic scheduling includes scheduling the . This limitation further narrows the previously identified method of organizing human activity, but the claim continues to set forth a method of organizing human activity and recite a new abstract idea. Dependent claim 12 recites no new additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons indicated above. As such, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, the previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea for the same reasons indicated above. Because the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, dependent claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 13 recites wherein the first personnel role of the workflow is a local imaging technologist operating a medical imaging device in the workflow and the second personnel role of the workflow is another imaging technologist. This limitation further narrows the previously identified method of organizing human activity, but the claim continues to set forth a method of organizing human activity and recite a new abstract idea. Dependent claim 13 recites no new additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons indicated above. As such, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, the previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea for the same reasons indicated above. Because the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, dependent claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 14 recites wherein the first personnel role of the workflow is a local imaging technologist operating a medical imaging device in the workflow and the second personnel role of the workflow is a radiologist scheduled to approve images acquired by the local imaging technologist in the workflow. This limitation further narrows the previously identified method of organizing human activity, but the claim continues to set forth a method of organizing human activity and recite a new abstract idea. Dependent claim 14 recites no new additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons indicated above. As such, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, the previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea for the same reasons indicated above. Because the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, dependent claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 15 recites receive an inquiry regarding a radiology examination and approve the draft communication request whereby the draft communication request becomes an approved communication request; send the approved communication request to a recipient identified in the approved communication request. This limitation further narrows the previously identified method of organizing human activity, but the claim continues to set forth a method of organizing human activity and recite a new abstract idea. The claim further recites the additional element of receiving information via an electronic device and providing a user interface on the electronic device which displays information. Receiving information via an electronic device does not represent any improvement to technology, does not require any particular machine, does not effect a transformation, and does not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior additional element, only generally links the new abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, this additional element does not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application. Providing a user interface on a device which displays information does not represent any improvement to technology, does not require any particular machine, does not effect a transformation, and does not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior additional elements, only generally links the new abstract idea to a technological environment of a computing device. As such, this additional element does not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the new abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. Thus the combination of additional elements does not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application. As such, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), receiving and transmitting data over a network has been recognized by the courts as a conventional computer function. As such, the additional element of receiving information via an electronic device does not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea. Stead (US 2002/0120633 A1) demonstrates (“a display of data in a conventional scrolling user interface” [0012]) that displaying information in a user interface on device was conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, the additional element of providing a user interface on the electronic device which displays information does not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea. When considered in combination, the additional elements only generally links the new abstract idea to a technological environment of a networked computing device. As such the combination does not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea. Because the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, dependent claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 16 recites wherein the producing the draft communication request includes: filling in a first subset of the fields of the communication request form with fixed items determined based on the inquiry and a current context of the radiology examination; filling in a second subset of the fields of the communication request form with proposed items based on the inquiry and a current context of the radiology examination. This limitation further narrows the previously identified method of organizing human activity, but the claim continues to set forth a method of organizing human activity and recite a new abstract idea. Dependent claim 16 recites no new additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons indicated above. As such, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, the previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea for the same reasons indicated above. Because the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, dependent claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 17 recites wherein filling in the second subset of the fields of the communication request form with the proposed items includes apply aThis limitation further narrows the previously identified method of organizing human activity, but the claim continues to set forth a method of organizing human activity and recite a new abstract idea. The claim further recites the additional element of artificial intelligence. This additional element amounts to instructions to implement the new abstract idea with a generic computing device. As previously noted, such additional elements do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. As such, this additional element does not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application. When considered in combination with the previously identified additional elements, the combination only generally links the new abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior identified additional elements, only generally links the new abstract idea to a technological environment of a networked computing device. As such the combination does not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea. Because the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, dependent claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 18 presenting a timeline of a workflow of the radiology examination This limitation further narrows the previously identified method of organizing human activity, but the claim continues to set forth a method of organizing human activity and recite a new abstract idea. Dependent claim 18 recites no new additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons indicated above. As such, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, the previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea for the same reasons indicated above. Because the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, dependent claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 19 recites wherein the radiology examination is an in-progress radiology examination at the time the inquiry is received, and the context of the radiology examination used in the producing of the draft communication is a current context of the in-progress radiology examination. This limitation further narrows the previously identified method of organizing human activity, but the claim continues to set forth a method of organizing human activity and recite a new abstract idea. Dependent claim 19 recites no new additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons indicated above. As such, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, the previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea for the same reasons indicated above. Because the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, dependent claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 20 recites wherein the inquiry indicates a personnel role of the requestor in the radiology examination and the producing of the draft communication request includes filling at least one field of the communication request form based on the indicated personnel role of the requestor. This limitation further narrows the previously identified method of organizing human activity, but the claim continues to set forth a method of organizing human activity and recite a new abstract idea. Dependent claim 20 recites no new additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the new abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons indicated above. As such, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, the previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not amount to significantly more than the new abstract idea for the same reasons indicated above. Because the dependent claim is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, dependent claim 20 is not patent eligible.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al. (US 2007/0073556 A1) in view of Monirabbasi et al. (US 2023/0005589 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Lau discloses a radiology workflow assistance apparatus comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions readable and executable by the processor (See at least [0024]) to:
retrieve information pertaining to an upcoming radiology examination of a patient including at least information identifying an imaging modality to be used in the upcoming radiology examination, information about the patient, and information obtained from a radiology examination order for the upcoming radiology examination (Scheduled patient information 406 may include a variety of information corresponding to scheduled patients. As discussed, scheduled patient information 406 may show a variety of information based on an individual view (that may be displayed in the current individual view caption 402). Similarly, scheduled patient information 406 may show a variety of information based on a shift view (that may be displayed in the current shift view caption 404). Scheduled patient information 406 may include information corresponding to a plurality of scheduled patients. For example, scheduled patient information 406 may display the following information for each patient: patient name, patient ID, order ID, study date, exam procedure, modality, number of images, and status. The scheduling coordination software may display only a portion of patient information corresponding to scheduled patients. For example, scheduling coordination software may be able to retrieve or associate patient data from a variety of sources, such as a PACS long-term storage 202 (shown in FIG. 2) and a PACS short-term storage 204 (shown in FIG. 2). See at least [0027]. Also: Healthcare service providers may use a PACS workstation to retrieve information relating to scheduled patients for a given shift or time period. For example, a radiologist may use a PACS workstation to view a list of scheduled exam list for that day. See at least [0007]), personnel roles of a workflow for performing the upcoming radiology examination; and personnel assigned to fill the personnel roles of the workflow (Staff for current shift view caption 408 may show a list of healthcare service providers who are scheduled to work during a particular shift. For example, staff for current shift view caption 408 may show all providers who are scheduled to work during the shift indicated in current shift view caption 404. Staff for current shift view 408 may show all of a certain type of healthcare service providers who are scheduled to work during a particular shift. For example, staff for current shift view 408 may show all radiologists scheduled to work during a particular shift. See at least [0028]. Also: method 600 predicts that a particular radiologist, Dr. Brown, may efficiently perform John Smith's examination. This prediction was made because Dr. Brown has examined this patient within the last month, and may have already acquired a degree of familiarity with the patient and the medical issues presented. Continuing to step 608, method 600 predicts that neither Dr. Green, nor Dr. White have an identifiable efficiency advantage with respect to John Smith's examination. Neither of Drs. Green or White have previously examined John Smith, and neither have an identified specialization that may be useful to this exam. Continuing to step 610, the state of coordination indicator 410 is adjusted to "B", which corresponds to Dr. Brown. Thus, coordination indicator 410 has been adjusted to communicate to Dr. Brown, or to Dr. Green and Dr. White, that Dr. Brown may efficiently perform John Smith's examination. See at least [0045]).
Lau does not appear to disclose based on the retrieved information, determine role-specific examination complexity metrics for respective roles of a workflow for performing the upcoming radiology examination; and provide at least one of advice or assistance to personnel assigned to fill the personnel roles of the workflow based on the determined role-specific examination complexity metrics. However, Monirabbasi teaches determine complexity metrics for respective a workflow; provide at least on of advice or assistance to personnel based on the determined complexity metrics (The recorded procedural medical device gesture data may also be utilized to identify the rate or frequency at which a particular gesture is required to be repeated or performed erroneously, which may also be utilized to score or rate the relative difficulty of the procedural gesture, independently or in concert with the amount of time required for the gesture. In this regard, qualitative or quantitative difficulty or complexity scores may be assigned to different procedural gestures, which, in turn, may be utilized to influence the guidance provided for those gestures, as described in greater detail below. See at least [0095]. Also: the amount or other characteristics of the guidance content may be influenced by the value for one or more difficulty metrics associated with the current task and/or the value for one or more experiential metrics associated with the patient. For example, when the value for a difficulty metric associated with the current task is above a threshold value and/or the value for an experiential metric associated with the patient is below a threshold value, the patient management unit 908 may determine that a greater amount of guidance content should be presented, that more detailed guidance content should be presented and/or that richer or more engaging guidance content should be prevented to better assist the patient with the current task. Conversely, when the difficulty metric is below a threshold value and/or the value for an experiential metric associated with the patient is above a threshold value, the patient management unit 908 may determine that a lesser amount of more simplified guidance content should be presented since the patient is likely to require less assistance with the current task. Moreover, in some scenarios, the patient management unit 908 may determine the guidance content should pertain to an advanced or optional feature associated with the current task or the configuration procedure to facilitate better utilization of the medical device features or functionality when the patient is unlikely to require assistance. See at least [0102]).
Lau provides a system which manages radiology exams, upon which the claimed invention’s difficulty based guidance can be seen as an improvement. However, Monirabbasi demonstrates that the prior art already knew of giving people advice based on a determined difficulty in healthcare contexts. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily applied the techniques of Monirabbasi to the system of Lau to evaluate the difficulty of upcoming examinations of Lau and to provide the providers with guidance based on that difficulty. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Monirabbasi would have resulted in a system which would better prepare providers for radiology examinations. As such, the application of Monirabbasi, and the claimed invention, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of Lau and the teachings of Monirabbasi.
Determine each complexity metric by apply a model to the information (
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al. (US 2007/0073556 A1) in view of Monirabbasi et al. (US 2023/0005589 A1), and further in view of Gorton et al. (US 2022/0199255 A1).
Regarding Claim 2: Lau in view of Monirabbasi makes obvious the above limitations. Lau does not appear to disclose determining each role-specific examination complexity by applying a role-specific predictive model to the retrieved information. However, Gorton teaches determine each complexity by applying a predictive model to the information (The method may further include determining a complexity associated with each of the one or more cases. See at least [0009]. Also: Complexity may be determined based on a combination of AI outputs and known workflows and testing steps required. See at least [0055]. Also: Complexity may be determined by a diagnosis (e.g. an AI system may classify a slide as Gleason 3+4=7 with relatively low confidence, or may determine a percentage likelihood of Gleason pattern 3 to be 49.9% and a percentage of Gleason pattern 4 may be 50.1%, indicating a borderline case), and/or a need for additional tests beyond an H&E slide to determine a diagnosis (for example, if a condition appears invasive and requires additional stained images for review like estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidural growth factor receptor 1 (HER2)). See at least [0054]).
Lau and Monirabbasi suggests a system which provides users guidance based on a determined difficulty of a task, upon which the use of a model to determine task difficulty can be seen as an improvement. However, Gorton demonstrates that the prior art already knew of using models to determine task difficulty. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily applied the techniques of Gorton to the system of Lau and Monirabbasi. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application would have predictably resulted in an improved system which would have more flexibility in determining task difficulty.
Regarding Claim 3: Lau in view of Monirabbasi and Gorton makes obvious the above limitations. As previously noted in combination with Lau, Gorton teaches wherein the models are artificial intelligence models (The method may further include determining a complexity associated with each of the one or more cases. See at least [0009]. Also: Complexity may be determined based on a combination of AI outputs and known workflows and testing steps required. See at least [0055]. Also: Complexity may be determined by a diagnosis (e.g. an AI system may classify a slide as Gleason 3+4=7 with relatively low confidence, or may determine a percentage likelihood of Gleason pattern 3 to be 49.9% and a percentage of Gleason pattern 4 may be 50.1%, indicating a borderline case), and/or a need for additional tests beyond an H&E slide to determine a diagnosis (for example, if a condition appears invasive and requires additional stained images for review like estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidural growth factor receptor 1 (HER2)). See at least [0054]). The motivation to combine Lau, Monirabbasi, and Gorton is the same as explained under claim 2 above, and is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 4: Lau in view of Monirabbasi and Gorton makes obvious the above limitations. As previously noted in combination with Lau, Gorton teaches derive role-related features from the information; wherein each complexity metric is determined by applying the corresponding predictive model to the role-related features for that workflow (The method may further include determining a complexity associated with each of the one or more cases. See at least [0009]. Also: Complexity may be determined based on a combination of AI outputs and known workflows and testing steps required. See at least [0055]. Also: Complexity may be determined by a diagnosis (e.g. an AI system may classify a slide as Gleason 3+4=7 with relatively low confidence, or may determine a percentage likelihood of Gleason pattern 3 to be 49.9% and a percentage of Gleason pattern 4 may be 50.1%, indicating a borderline case), and/or a need for additional tests beyond an H&E slide to determine a diagnosis (for example, if a condition appears invasive and requires additional stained images for review like estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidural growth factor receptor 1 (HER2)). See at least [0054]). The motivation to combine Lau, Monirabbasi, and Gorton is the same as explained under claim 2 above, and is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al. (US 2007/0073556 A1) in view of Monirabbasi et al. (US 2023/0005589 A1), and further in view of Trovato (US 2018/0286504 A1).
Regarding Claim 6: Lau in view of Monirabbasi makes obvious the above limitations. Lau does not appear to disclose present information indicative of the role-specific examination complexity metrics on electronic devices accessible by the personnel assigned to fill the personnel roles of the radiology examination workflow.
Trovato teaches presenting information indicative of the role-specific examination complexity metrics on electronic devices accessible by the personnel assigned to fill the personnel roles of the radiology examination workflow (to aid the radiologist in assessing examination reading difficulty, each radiology examination reading task listed on the work list display 32D includes an indicator of the prospective challenge level. In illustrative FIG. 2, these indicators are presented as different icons 50, whose meanings are indicated in a challenge level legend 52 at the bottom of the display. … While shading levels are used in FIG. 2, the stars can alternatively be color-coded, e.g. a green star for a simple examination, a yellow star for a moderately challenging examination, and a red star for a difficult examination. See at least [0036]).
Lau and Monirabbasi suggests a system which provides guidance regarding upcoming radiology examinations, upon which the claimed invention’s provision of difficulty indicators can be seen as an improvement. However, Trovato demonstrates that the prior art already knew of providing difficulty indicators regarding radiology tasks. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily applied the indicators of Trovato with the guidance of Lau and Monirabbasi. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Trovato would have resulted in an improved system which would clearly inform providers of upcoming task difficulties. As such, the application of Trovato, and the claimed invention, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of Lau and the teachings of Monirabbasi and Trovato.
Regarding Claim 7: Lau in view of Monirabbasi makes obvious the above limitations. Lau does not appear to disclose present information indicative of each role-specific examination complexity metric on one or more electronic devices accessible by one or more persons assigned to fill the personnel role of the workflow corresponding to that role-specific examination complexity metric.
Trovato teaches presenting information indicative of each role-specific examination complexity metric on one or more electronic devices accessible by one or more persons assigned to fill the personnel role of the workflow corresponding to that role-specific examination complexity metric (to aid the radiologist in assessing examination reading difficulty, each radiology examination reading task listed on the work list display 32D includes an indicator of the prospective challenge level. In illustrative FIG. 2, these indicators are presented as different icons 50, whose meanings are indicated in a challenge level legend 52 at the bottom of the display. … While shading levels are used in FIG. 2, the stars can alternatively be color-coded, e.g. a green star for a simple examination, a yellow star for a moderately challenging examination, and a red star for a difficult examination. See at least [0036]).
Lau and Monirabbasi suggests a system which provides guidance regarding upcoming radiology examinations, upon which the claimed invention’s provision of difficulty indicators can be seen as an improvement. However, Trovato demonstrates that the prior art already knew of providing difficulty indicators regarding radiology tasks. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily applied the indicators of Trovato with the guidance of Lau and Monirabbasi. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Trovato would have resulted in an improved system which would clearly inform providers of upcoming task difficulties. As such, the application of Trovato, and the claimed invention, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of Lau and the teachings of Monirabbasi and Trovato.
Regarding Claim 8: Lau in view of Monirabbasi makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Lau discloses displaying a schedule of radiology examinations including the upcoming radiology examination on the one or more electronic devices accessible by the one or more persons assigned to fill the personnel role of the workflow (Scheduled patient information 406 may include a variety of information corresponding to scheduled patients. As discussed, scheduled patient information 406 may show a variety of information based on an individual view (that may be displayed in the current individual view caption 402). Similarly, scheduled patient information 406 may show a variety of information based on a shift view (that may be displayed in the current shift view caption 404). Scheduled patient information 406 may include information corresponding to a plurality of scheduled patients. For example, scheduled patient information 406 may display the following information for each patient: patient name, patient ID, order ID, study date, exam procedure, modality, number of images, and status. The scheduling coordination software may display only a portion of patient information corresponding to scheduled patients. For example, scheduling coordination software may be able to retrieve or associate patient data from a variety of sources, such as a PACS long-term storage 202 (shown in FIG. 2) and a PACS short-term storage 204 (shown in FIG. 2). See at least [0027]. Also: Healthcare service providers may use a PACS workstation to retrieve information relating to scheduled patients for a given shift or time period. For example, a radiologist may use a PACS workstation to view a list of scheduled exam list for that day. See at least [0007]). Lau does not appear to disclose wherein the upcoming radiology examination is color coded in the displayed schedule of radiology examination based on the role-specific examination complexity metric determined for the upcoming radiology examination. Further, as previously noted in combination with Lau, Trovato teaches wherein the upcoming radiology task is color coded in the displayed schedule of radiology tasks based on the role-specific examination complexity metric determined for the upcoming radiology (task to aid the radiologist in assessing examination reading difficulty, each radiology examination reading task listed on the work list display 32D includes an indicator of the prospective challenge level. In illustrative FIG. 2, these indicators are presented as different icons 50, whose meanings are indicated in a challenge level legend 52 at the bottom of the display. … While shading levels are used in FIG. 2, the stars can alternatively be color-coded, e.g. a green star for a simple examination, a yellow star for a moderately challenging examination, and a red star for a difficult examination. See at least [0036]). The motivation to combine Lau, Monirabbasi, and Trovato is the same as explained under claim 7 above, and is incorporated herein.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Fujimotor et al. (US 2020/0012993 A1) and Mullins (US 2017/0277559 A1) provide additional disclosures regarding determining the difficulty of a task.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/Bion A Shelden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2026-09-19
