DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to a response filed 3 December 2025, on an application filed 7 February 2022.
Claims 1-10, 19 and 21 have been amended.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Preiss et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2012/0173257 A1), hereinafter Preiss, in view of Tewari et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2009/0007241 A1), hereinafter Tewari, in view of Kibble (U.S. PG-Pub 2020/0312439 A1), further in view of Boda et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2021/0358596 A1), hereinafter Boda.
As per claims 1, 10 and 19, Preiss discloses One or more non-transitory computer readable media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, a computer-implemented method and a picture archiving and communication system (PACS) for caching images for remote viewing, the system (Preiss, Figs. 1, 2 and 11.) comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more memories storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Preiss, Figs. 1, 2 and 11.) comprising:
receiving first location data from a user device (Preiss discloses tracking a user’s location by a location device, see paragraphs 19 and 23-26.);
identifying based on the first location data and an on-premise location associated with a remote image viewing device, a caching device that is (1) located at the on-premise location and (2) communicatively coupled to the remote image viewing device (Pursuant to a determination that the user device is going to or proximate of the target location, system triggers prefetching of appropriate data, including imaging data to a workstation for viewing images, see paragraphs 19, 25, 27, 44 and 55; and Fig. 10. It is the Office’s opinion that the hard drive that stores the cached information for the workstation would comprise a caching device that is (1) located at the on-premise location and (2) communicatively coupled to the remote image viewing device, see specifically Fig. 10 and paragraph 45.);
… trigger caching of image data from the PACS to the identified caching device (Preiss discloses wherein the user device triggers caching of image data to the caching device: Pursuant to a determination that the user device is going to or proximate of the target location, system triggers prefetching of appropriate data, including imaging data to a workstation for viewing images, see paragraphs 19, 25, 27, 44 and 55; and Fig. 10.);
processing responsive to the user device triggering the caching of the image data to the identified caching device (Preiss, see paragraphs 19, 25, 27, 44 and 55.);
… in response to the user device triggering the caching operation …, causing transmission of the image data to the identified caching device via a wireless network having one or more of network latencies or bandwidth restrictions (Preiss discloses the prefetching of patient data, including patient image data, to an appropriate computing device for examination by the provider, see paragraphs 19, 25, 27, 44 and 55. Paragraph 39 discloses a user device triggering the caching operation to the user device. It is the Office’s position that ALL wireless networks have network latencies and bandwidth restrictions because all networks operate in the physical world and cannot transmit data faster than the speed of light nor can they transmit infinite data simultaneously.).
Preiss fails to explicitly disclose transmitting a cache identifier associated with the identified caching device to the user device, wherein the user device is configured to, responsive to receiving the cache identifier associated with the identified caching device, transmit a start command to the identified caching device to trigger caching of image data from the PACS… .
Tewari teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose transmitting … a cache identifier associated with the identified caching device to the user device, to… transmit a start command to the identified caching device to trigger caching of image data from the PACS (Tewari, claims 1, 8 and 9 and Fig. 17 disclose wherein a URL [cache identifier] is sent to a user/customer, who then triggers the caching operation [by providing the URL to the server, which then transmits/caches the requested content to the user/customer]; which is effectively a start command.) in order provide “a secure content delivery system that allows network traffic to be efficiently distributed to content servers by load balancing requests among servers and provides faster response times” (Tewari, paragraph 11.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patient data caching system of Preiss to include transmitting … a cache identifier associated with the identified caching device to the user device, to… transmit a start command to the identified caching device to trigger caching of image data from the PACS, as taught by Tewari, in order to arrive at a patient data caching system that provides “a secure content delivery system that allows network traffic to be efficiently distributed to content servers by load balancing requests among servers and provides faster response times” (Tewari, paragraph 11.).
Preiss and Tewari fail to explicitly disclose a user device, a PACs and a caching device, separately utilized to provide a caching service.
Kibble discloses a user device, a PACs and a caching device, separately utilized to provide a caching service.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patient data caching system of Preiss to include a user device, a PACs and a caching device, separately utilized to provide a caching service, as taught by Kibble, in order to arrive at a patient data caching system that provides a multitude of potential caching operations.
Preiss, Tewari and Kibble fail to explicitly disclose transmitting an acknowledgement responsive to the user device.
However, Boda teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmitting, by the PACS, an acknowledgement responsive to the user device (Boda discloses transmit data identifying the storage location of patient imaging data to a computing device, see paragraphs 82, 87 and 108.) in order to provide information to a user to access the data utilizing an image viewer (See Boda, paragraph 108.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patient data caching system of Preiss/Tewari/Kibble to include transmitting data identifying the storage location of patient imaging data to a computing device, as taught by Boda, in order to arrive at a patient data caching system provides information to a user to access the data utilizing an image viewer (See Boda, paragraph 108.).
Preiss, Tewari and Kibble are all directed to the determination of efficient storage locations of data. Both Preiss and Boda are directed to the anticipation of user needs within a healthcare environment. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
As per claims 4-6, 8, 9, 13-15, 17 and 18, Preiss/Tewari/Kibble/Boda discloses claims 1 and 10, discussed above. Preiss/Tewari/Kibble/Boda also discloses:
4,13. receiving from the user device (Preiss discloses a series of location technologies that are old and well known to give identification information [metadata] along with location information, see paragraphs 19 and 23-26. Tewari and Kibble separately disclose processing by PACS, as shown above.); and identifying the image data based on the metadata (Based on the identity of the tracked provider, the system can access appropriate information to prefetch for the provider, see paragraphs 26, 27, 31 and 33. Tewari and Kibble separately disclose processing by PACS, as shown above.);
5,14. wherein identifying the image data further comprises: querying an image database based on the metadata; and retrieving the image data from the image database (Based on the identity of the tracked provider, the system can access appropriate information to prefetch for the provider, see paragraphs 26, 27, 31 and 33. Preiss discloses use of PACS machines to provide access to imaging data, see paragraphs 2, 25, 50, 52 and 53. Tewari and Kibble separately disclose processing by PACS, as shown above.);
6,15. wherein the first location data is received at a first time, the operations further comprising: receiving second location data from the user device at a second time that is after the first time; comparing the first location data and the second location data to determine whether the user device is traveling to the remote image viewing device, wherein the user device is caused to trigger caching of the image data to the identified caching device responsive to a determination that the user device is traveling to the remote image viewing device (Preiss discloses consistent tracking of a user’s location across time, see paragraphs 19 and 23-26, in order to predict where a user is travelling, see paragraphs 2-5, 18, 19 and 48 to prefetch relevant information, see paragraphs 19, 25, 27, 44 and 55. Tewari discloses the user device triggering caching, as shown above. Tewari and Kibble separately disclose processing by PACS, as shown above.);
8,17. wherein the identified caching device is a computing device located at a healthcare facility (Preiss, Figs. 1 and 11.); and
9,18. wherein the image data is medical image data associated with one or more patients (Preiss discloses identifying relevant information associated with a patient of the provider to be prefetched, see paragraphs 19, 27 and 28.).
As per claims 2, 3, 11 and 12, Preiss/Tewari/Kibble/Boda disclose claims 1 and 10, discussed above. Preiss fails to explicitly disclose:
2,11. wherein the cache identifier is for a particular cache of the identified caching device; and
3,12. wherein the cache identifier is a web address or a link for the particular cache of the identified caching device.
Tewari teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein the cache identifier is for a particular cache of the identified caching device; and wherein the cache identifier is a web address or a link for the particular cache of the identified caching device (Tewari, claims 1, 8 and 9 and Fig. 17 disclose wherein a URL [cache identifier] is sent to a user/customer, who then triggers the caching operation [by providing the URL to the server, which then transmits/caches the requested content to the user/customer].) in order provide “a secure content delivery system that allows network traffic to be efficiently distributed to content servers by load balancing requests among servers and provides faster response times” (Tewari, paragraph 11.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patient data caching system of Preiss/Tewari/Kibble/Boda to include transmitting a cache identifier associated with the identified caching device to the user device, to cause the user device to trigger a caching operation via the identified caching device, as taught by Tewari, in order to arrive at a patient data caching system that provides “a secure content delivery system that allows network traffic to be efficiently distributed to content servers by load balancing requests among servers and provides faster response times” (Tewari, paragraph 11.). Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Preiss/Tewari/Kibble/Boda further in view of Ullrich (U.S. PG-Pub 2016/0142497 A1), hereinafter Ullrich.
As per claim 21, Preiss/Tewari/Kibble/Boda discloses claim 1, discussed above. Preiss/Tewari/Kibble/Boda also discloses determining … a predicted trajectory to the remote image viewing device, wherein the user device is caused to trigger caching of the image data to the identified caching device responsive to a determination that the predicted trajectory is in a direction of the remote image viewing device (Pursuant to a determination that the user device is going to or proximate of the target location, system triggers prefetching of appropriate data, including imaging data to a workstation for viewing images, see Preiss paragraphs 19, 25, 27, 44 and 55. Tewari discloses the user device triggering caching, as shown above. Tewari and Kibble separately disclose processing by PACS, as shown above.).
Preiss fails to explicitly disclose: determining, based at least on historical data and using a trained machine learning model, a predicted trajectory.
Ullrich teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determining, based at least on historical data and using a trained machine learning model, a predicted trajectory (See Ullrich, paragraphs 41-43.) in order to provide “a system for anticipatory provisioning of resources for a mobile user in an institutional space” (Ullrich, paragraph 14.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patient data caching system of Preiss/Tewari/Kibble/Boda to include determining, based at least on historical data and using a trained machine learning model, a predicted trajectory, as taught by Ullrich, in order to arrive at a patient data caching system that provides “a system for anticipatory provisioning of resources for a mobile user in an institutional space” (Ullrich, paragraph 14.).
Both Preiss and Ullrich are directed to the anticipation of user needs within a healthcare environment. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3 December 2025 concerning the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues on pages 9-11 that the previously cited references fail to disclose the claim elements as amended:
A. Tewari fails to disclose the URL is associated with the caching device;
B. No references cite transmitting a start command;
C. No references disclose transmission of an acknowledgement.
The Office respectfully disagrees. Please see the new prior art rejection above, issued in view of the amendments to the claims, wherein:
A,B. The URL of Tewari is associated with the caching device and transmits an acknowledgement: (Tewari, claims 1, 8 and 9 and Fig. 17 disclose wherein a URL [cache identifier] is sent to a user/customer, who then triggers the caching operation [by providing the URL to the server, which then transmits/caches the requested content to the user/customer]; which is effectively a start command.); and
C. The new citation of Boda discloses the contested limitation.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, specifically with reference to the new citation of the previously cited reference, as necessitated by amendment, Boda, as detailed above, or because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The remainder of applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In conclusion, all of the limitations which Applicant disputes as missing in the applied references, including the features newly added by amendment, have been fully addressed by the Office as either being fully disclosed or obvious in view of the collective teachings of Preiss, Tewari, Kibble, Graves, Boda and Ullrich, based on the logic and sound scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, as detailed in the remarks and explanations given in the preceding sections of the present Office Action and in the prior Office Actions (10 September 2025, 16 May 2025, 25 November 2024, 16 July 2024 and 5 March 2024), and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mark Holcomb, whose telephone number is 571.270.1382. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8-5). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached at 571.272.6702.
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.
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
20 March 2025