CTNF 19/199,172 CTNF 77595 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application with claims 1 and 16 being independent. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 12, it appears that "an intelligent" should be --the intelligent--. In claim 16, line 17, it appears that "an intelligent" should be --the intelligent --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitations "the intelligent automated protocoling system," "the mapping database," and "the display device" lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 1 and 16 call for, inter alia, receiving a standard procedure ID; determining a medical imaging procedure based on the standard procedure ID; and then, based on previously receiving the standard procedure ID, generating one or more protocol recommendations based on the determined medical imaging procedure and a local procedure-to-protocol mapping that matches DICOM tags associated with a local imaging procedure to the one or more protocol recommendations having matching DICOM tags. However, it is not understood how the "determined medical imaging procedure" can be used to determine the one or more protocol recommendations using the mapping because the mapping is not recited as including any details regarding such determined medical imaging procedure but instead includes DICOM tags associated with some "local imaging procedure" which appears distinct from the determined medical imaging procedure. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 17 recites the limitation " the MWL entry " in line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from the above claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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: Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1: As claims 1-20 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), the claims are all within at least one of the four statutory categories. 35 USC §101. Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One: Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 and July 2024 updates issued by the USPTO as incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a). Representative independent claim 16 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 16 recites: A medical imaging system, comprising: an intelligent automated protocoling system configured to map DICOM tags to at least one of a plurality of imaging protocols ; a mapping database comprising the plurality of imaging protocols; a display device; and a processor communicably coupled to each of the intelligent automated protocoling system, the mapping database, and the display device, the processor configured with instructions in non-transitory memory that when executed cause the processor to: receive, from a hospital-specific user interface, a standard procedure ID; determine a medical imaging procedure based on the standard procedure ID; and responsive to having previously received the standard procedure ID: generate one or more protocol recommendations based at least on the determined medical imaging procedure, wherein the generating the one or more protocol recommendations is based on a local procedure-to-protocol mapping stored in memory of an intelligent automated protocoling system, the local procedure-to-protocol mapping configured to match one or more DICOM tags associated with a local imaging procedure to the one or more protocol recommendations based on the one or more protocol recommendations each having at least one DICOM tag that matches one or more of the one or more DICOM tags associated with the local imaging procedure; and perform the determined medical imaging procedure based on at least one of the one or more protocol recommendations, wherein performing the determined medical imaging procedure comprises: translating the at least one of the one or more protocol recommendations into a scan session executable; configuring, using the scan session executable, an x-ray device projected towards a detector array positioned opposite of a gantry; and generating a medical image of each respective basis material of a subject by converting a set of projection data to a set of density line-integral projections. The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite "mental processes" because they are observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). As an example, a medical professional could practically in their mind with pen and paper map DICOM tags to imaging protocols; determine a medical imaging procedure based on a standard procedure ID (e.g., a particular type of CT scan); based on previously receiving the standard procedure ID, generate one or more protocol recommendations based on the determined medical imaging procedure and a local procedure-to-protocol mapping that matches DICOM tags associated with a local imaging procedure to the one or more protocol recommendations having matching DICOM tags. For instance, in the case where the determined medical imaging procedure was the same as the local imaging procedure, the medical professional could identify one or more protocol recommendations having DICOM tags the same as those associated with the local imaging procedure in the mapping. These recitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis found to be "mental processes" in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQe2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claims “directed to collection of information, comprehending the meaning of that collected information, and indication of the results, all on a generic computer network operating in its normal, expected manner,” fail step one of the Alice framework. In re Killian , 45 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Claims directed to “collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data’’ are abstract. Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. General Elec. Co. , 916 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Claims directed to organizing, storing, and transmitting information determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Cyberfone Sys., L.L.C. v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc. , 558 F. App’x 988, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. Furthermore, dependent claims 11, 12, and 17-20 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below: -Claim 11 recites how receiving the standard procedure ID includes determining the standard procedure ID based on an MWL entry which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes") such as with a lookup table or the like. -Claim 12 recites how generating the one or more protocol recommendations is further based on additional information from the MWL entry which just further defines the "mental processes" discussed previously. -Claim 17 recites how generating the one or more protocol recommendations includes correlating the MWL entry to a local procedure ID and selecting the at least one of the plurality of imaging protocols based on the local procedure ID which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes"). -Claim 18 calls for logging an indication that the at least one second imaging protocol is not stored in the mapping database responsive to at least one second imaging protocol from the one or more protocol recommendations not corresponding to any of the plurality of imaging protocols which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes"). -Claim 19 calls for mapping the one or more DICOM tags to the at least one of the plurality of imaging protocols which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes"). -Claim 20 calls for selecting the first imaging protocol from the one or more recommendations which is practically performable in the human mind with pen and paper ("mental processes"). Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two: Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A). In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”): A medical imaging system, comprising: an intelligent automated protocoling system configured to (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) map DICOM tags to at least one of a plurality of imaging protocols ; a mapping database comprising the plurality of imaging protocols (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) ; a display device (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) ; and a processor communicably coupled to each of the intelligent automated protocoling system, the mapping database, and the display device, the processor configured with instructions in non-transitory memory that when executed cause the processor to (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) : receive, from a hospital-specific user interface , a standard procedure ID ( extra-solution activity (data gathering), see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) ; determine a medical imaging procedure based on the standard procedure ID; and responsive to having previously received the standard procedure ID: generate one or more protocol recommendations based at least on the determined medical imaging procedure, wherein the generating the one or more protocol recommendations is based on a local procedure-to-protocol mapping stored in memory of an intelligent automated protocoling system (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) , the local procedure-to-protocol mapping configured to match one or more DICOM tags associated with a local imaging procedure to the one or more protocol recommendations based on the one or more protocol recommendations each having at least one DICOM tag that matches one or more of the one or more DICOM tags associated with the local imaging procedure; and perform the determined medical imaging procedure based on at least one of the one or more protocol recommendations, wherein performing the determined medical imaging procedure comprises: translating the at least one of the one or more protocol recommendations into a scan session executable; configuring, using the scan session executable, an x-ray device projected towards a detector array positioned opposite of a gantry; and generating a medical image of each respective basis material of a subject by converting a set of projection data to a set of density line-integral projections (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f) ; mere field of use limitation as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) . For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of the “intelligent automated protocoling system,” mapping database with imaging protocols, display device, processor, memory with instructions, the hospital-specific UI, and the memory of the intelligent automated protocoling system, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Regarding the additional limitation of receiving, from a hospital-specific user interface, a standard procedure ID, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Regarding the additional limitations of performing the determined medical imaging procedure by translating the at least one of the one or more protocol recommendations into a scan session executable; configuring, using the scan session executable, an x-ray device projected towards a detector array positioned opposite of a gantry; configuring the x-ray device to traverse different angular positions around a subject for acquiring projection data (from claim 1); and generating a medical image of each respective basis material of a subject by converting a set of projection data to a set of density line-integral projections, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery (e.g., CT system) as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (e.g., a method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of cutting the hair with a tool). Additionally or alternatively, these additional limitations do no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). A common feature of many field of use limitations is an absence of integration into the claim as a whole and not altering how the process steps of the abstract idea are performed. In the present case, the limitations calling for translating the at least one of the one or more protocol recommendations into a scan session executable; configuring, using the scan session executable, an x-ray device projected towards a detector array positioned opposite of a gantry; and generating a medical image of each respective basis material of a subject by converting a set of projection data to a set of density line-integral projections (which are basic, known steps of a CT scan procedure) do not affect how the process steps of generating the one or more protocol recommendations are performed. Furthermore, the present specification even discloses ([0017]) how the disclosed embodiments can be implemented using various imaging modalities in addition to CT such as x-ray, MR, US, etc. which further supports the Examiner's position that the above limitations are just limiting the reach of the imaging protocol recommendation generation steps to a particular technological environment. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2). For these reasons, representative independent claim 16 and analogous independent claim 1 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, representative independent claim 16 and analogous independent claim 1 are directed to at least one abstract idea. The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below: -Claims 2-10 recite various details regarding use of the CT machine, image reconstruction, etc. (e.g., controlling gantry, details of x-ray source, generating density maps/volume renderings, etc.) which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea or altering how the abstract idea is carried out (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Again, these limitations have nothing to do with and are not integrated into the steps of generating the one or more imaging protocol recommendations. -Claim 11 calls for receiving, at the hospital-specific UI, an MWL entry which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). -Claim 13 calls for displaying protocol recommendations at a UI which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and receiving the recommendation from the UI which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). -Claim 14 calls for displaying an indication that no protocols were generated at the UI responsive to not previously receiving the standard procedure ID which again amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). -Claim 15 calls for receiving a manual protocol selection from the UI which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and performing the determined medical imaging procedure based on the manual selection which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery (e.g., CT system) as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (e.g., a method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of cutting the hair with a tool). -Claim 20 calls for receiving the selection of a first imaging protocol from the one or more protocol recommendations including receiving, from the user, confirmation of the automatically selected first imaging protocol which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). When the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea. Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 16 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of the “intelligent automated protocoling system,” mapping database with imaging protocols, display device, processor, memory with instructions, the hospital-specific UI, and the memory of the intelligent automated protocoling system, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Regarding the additional limitations of performing the determined medical imaging procedure by translating the at least one of the one or more protocol recommendations into a scan session executable; configuring, using the scan session executable, an x-ray device projected towards a detector array positioned opposite of a gantry; and generating a medical image of each respective basis material of a subject by converting a set of projection data to a set of density line-integral projections, these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery (e.g., CT system) as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (e.g., a method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of cutting the hair with a tool). Additionally or alternatively, these additional limitations do no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). A common feature of many field of use limitations is an absence of integration into the claim as a whole and not altering how the process steps of the abstract idea are performed. In the present case, the limitations calling for translating the at least one of the one or more protocol recommendations into a scan session executable; configuring, using the scan session executable, an x-ray device projected towards a detector array positioned opposite of a gantry; and generating a medical image of each respective basis material of a subject by converting a set of projection data to a set of density line-integral projections (which are basic, known steps of a CT scan procedure) do not affect how the process steps of generating the one or more protocol recommendations are performed. Furthermore, the present specification even discloses ([0017]) how the disclosed embodiments can be implemented using various imaging modalities in addition to CT such as x-ray, MR, US, etc. which further supports the Examiner's position that the above limitations are just limiting the reach of the imaging protocol recommendation generation steps to a particular technological environment. Regarding the additional limitations directed to receiving, from a hospital-specific user interface, a standard procedure ID, which the Examiner submits merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) as discussed above, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp. , 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. -Claims 2-10 recite various details regarding use of the CT machine, image reconstruction, etc. (e.g., controlling gantry, details of x-ray source, generating density maps/volume renderings, etc.) which does no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use without adding an inventive concept to the abstract idea or altering how the abstract idea is carried out (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Again, these limitations have nothing to do with and are not integrated into the steps of generating the one or more imaging protocol recommendations. -Claim 11 calls for receiving, at the hospital-specific UI, an MWL entry which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp. , 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). -Claim 13 calls for displaying protocol recommendations at a UI which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and receiving the recommendation from the UI which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp. , 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). -Claim 14 calls for displaying an indication that no protocols were generated at the UI responsive to not previously receiving the standard procedure ID which again amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). -Claim 15 calls for receiving a manual protocol selection from the UI which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and performing the determined medical imaging procedure based on the manual selection which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery (e.g., CT system) as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (e.g., a method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of cutting the hair with a tool). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp. , 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). -Claim 20 calls for receiving the selection of a first imaging protocol from the one or more protocol recommendations including receiving, from the user, confirmation of the automatically selected first imaging protocol which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving/transmitting data over a network. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp. , 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 . For reference, U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0072781 to Omernick et al. determining one or more desirable changes to a default setting of an imaging system based on operator usage. For example, in some embodiments, the imaging system may include circuitry that monitors each imaging operation to identify which exam protocols are frequently implemented together by the operator. Once identified, the imaging system may recommend establishment of a favorite group that includes the exam protocols that are frequently utilized together by the operator. For further example, in additional embodiments, the imaging system may monitor changes made by the operator to one or more default parameters (e.g., magnification, dose level, etc.) in multiple imaging operations. In this way, the imaging system may identify operator usage patterns and utilize these patterns to recommend changes to the default parameters in accordance with prior usage. The foregoing features of presently disclosed embodiments may offer advantages over systems in which the default parameter values and favorite groupings are inflexible or rely on manual reprogramming in order to make changes to the default settings. For instance, these features may reduce or eliminate the need for an operator to repeatedly update parameter values or establish the frequently utilized desired groupings. Also for reference, U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0144823 to Raman et al. discloses a cloud-based imaging protocol manager that pushes standard imaging protocols from the cloud to imaging devices registered with the protocol manager. The protocol manager maintains a library storing standard imaging protocols, determines whether an imaging device is compatible with the standard protocol(s) to be pushed, creates a push command which requests pushing the standard protocol(s) to a compatible imaging device, stores the push command in a command queue, converts the standard protocol(s) to raw protocol(s) usable by the imaging device. The imaging device polls the command queue to receive the push command, downloads the raw protocol(s) from the protocol manager, commits or refuses to commit the downloaded protocol(s), and sends a notification to the protocol manager indicating execution status of the push command. Also for reference, EP 3451211 discloses a method for controlling a medical imaging system (1), comprising the following steps: Provision of a data record (PD) of a patient (P) containing indication data (ID), mapping at least the indication data (ID) into an ontology (0), Provision of a control data library (SB) comprising control data records (SD) for at least one medical imaging system (1), automatic determination of a control data record (SD) from the control data library (SB) as a function of the indication data (ID) mapped in the ontology (0), by means of an inference and / or numerical modeling, - Control of the medical imaging system (1) with the determined control data record (SD). The invention further relates to a related control device (10) and a medical imaging system (1). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason Dunham, can be reached at 571-272-8109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686 Application/Control Number: 19/199,172 Page 2 Art Unit: 3686
Prosecution Insights