DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 16 January 2026.
Claim(s) 26, 39, and 43 is/are amended. Claim(s)
Claim(s) 26-50 is/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 .
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) 26-30, 34-37, 39, and 41-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldner et al. (US 2009/0313170 A1) in view of Seki et al. (US 2001/0052003 A1).
Regarding Claim 26, 29, and 43: Goldner discloses an apparatus including a memory storing logic (computer program product. See at least [0008]) corresponding to a medical data forwarding engine (MDFE), and one or more processors computer system. See at least [0008]) to execute the logic to perform operations including:
accessing an encoded medical data file compliant with a medical signal handling protocol, the medical data file from a medical computing system of a medical facility network (The process begins at step 200, which transfers data to the agent 100 (step 200). The agent 100 may accept local data from one or more sources. For example, medical image data may be "pushed" to the agent 100 from a networked modality 120, PACS 130 or storage device 140 (i.e., transfer is initiated at the site of the source). The medical image data may be a single image or multiple linked images (e.g., x-rays taken of a bone at multiple angles). See at least [0038]. Also: An agent 100 is embodied in software running on a computer in a remote local area network (LAN) 110, such as may be found at a investigator site (e.g., a hospital, radiology department, clinic, or other imaging facility). See at least [0032]. Also: The image source may be selectable from at least one of a DICOM-compliant medical imaging system, a PACS, and an optical data storage reader. See at least [0013]. Examiner’s note: The specification at [0073] gives DICOM as an example of a medical signal handling protocol).
preprocessing the medical file by changing the medical file to be compliant with a networking communication protocol compatible with a web interface of a network external to the medical facility network (external network) (The agent 100 may include a variety of features designed to enforce compliance with a particular data transmission protocol. … For example, the agent may transmit the information to the data center 150 or core lab 160 only after compliance with one or more of the de-identification, transmission and compression steps. See at least [0044]); and
after preprocessing, forwarding, based on the networking communication protocol the medical file to the external network (After preparing the data as noted above, the process transmits it to the core lab 160 via a data center 150 (steps 250, 260). See at least [0042] and Fig. 1).
Goldner does not expressly disclose comparing a length of the medical data file with a threshold length configured at the MDFE or in response to a determination that the length of the medical data file is above the threshold, fragmenting the medical data file to obtain medical file fragments therefrom, wherein the medical file fragments correspond to fragments of the medical data file.
Seki teaches comparing a length of a data file with a threshold length configured or in response to a determination that the length of the data file is above the threshold, fragmenting the data file to obtain file fragments therefrom, wherein the file fragments correspond to fragments of the data file (if the size of the data for the web page source exceeds the maximum transmission size, the web page source is divided into data files that are not larger than the maximum transmission size for the user terminal 220. See at least [0097]).
Goldner provides system that manages the transmission of medical data files, upon which the claimed invention’s fragmentation of the files can be seen as an improvement. However, Seki demonstrates that the prior art already knew of fragmenting files for the purposes of transmission. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially applied the techniques of Seki to the system of Goldner to fragment files for transmission. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Seki would have resulted in an improved system which could distribute files in a size according to the limits the a file destination. As such, the application of Seki 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 Goldner and the teachings of Seki.
Regarding Claim 27, 41, and 44: Goldner in view of Seki makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Seki teaches configure the apparatus with the threshold length (If data division and transmission is designated as information included in the user profile, when the size of the data for a desired web page exceeds the maximum transmission size, a request can be issued to the provider 110 to divide the data file into data segments that are equal to or smaller than the maximum transmission size, and to transmit the data segments. When data division and transmission are not designated, however, only that data which corresponds in size to the maximum transmission size will be transmitted. See at least [0057]). The motivation to combine Goldner and Seki is the same as explained under claim 26 above and is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 28 and 45: Goldner in view of Seki makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Seki teaches selecting the threshold length from a list of threshold lengths (If data division and transmission is designated as information included in the user profile, when the size of the data for a desired web page exceeds the maximum transmission size, a request can be issued to the provider 110 to divide the data file into data segments that are equal to or smaller than the maximum transmission size, and to transmit the data segments. When data division and transmission are not designated, however, only that data which corresponds in size to the maximum transmission size will be transmitted. See at least [0057]). The motivation to combine Goldner and Seki is the same as explained under claim 26 above and is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 29, 42, and 46: Goldner in view of Seki makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Seki teaches selecting from the list based on at least one of quality of service requirements, latency requirements, source of the medical data file, destination for the medical data file, or the networking communication protocol (If data division and transmission is designated as information included in the user profile, when the size of the data for a desired web page exceeds the maximum transmission size, a request can be issued to the provider 110 to divide the data file into data segments that are equal to or smaller than the maximum transmission size, and to transmit the data segments. When data division and transmission are not designated, however, only that data which corresponds in size to the maximum transmission size will be transmitted. See at least [0057]. Examiner’s note: Seki’s system selects a threshold from the list of all possible thresholds based on the destination’s user profile). The motivation to combine Goldner and Seki is the same as explained under claim 26 above and is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 30 and 47: Goldner in view of Seki makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Seki teaches routing the medical file fragments to the external network on a fragment by fragment basis (if the size of the data for the web page source exceeds the maximum transmission size, the web page source is divided into data files that are not larger than the maximum transmission size for the user terminal 220. … when all the data files have been transmitted to the user 120. See at least [0097]). The motivation to combine Goldner and Seki is the same as explained under claim 26 above and is incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 34: Goldner in view of Seki makes obvious the above limitations. Goldner further discloses wherein preprocessing further includes at least one of: compressing, decompressing, appending routing information, encrypting, decrypting, format conversion, or anonymizing (The agent 100 may include a variety of features designed to enforce compliance with a particular data transmission protocol. … For example, the agent may transmit the information to the data center 150 or core lab 160 only after compliance with one or more of the de-identification, transmission and compression steps. See at least [0044).
Regarding Claim 35: Goldner in view of Seki makes obvious the above limitations. The limitation wherein preprocessing that comprises format conversion includes changing a file format of individual ones of the medical file fragments from a first file format to a second file format different from the first file format to make medical file fragments compatible with the networking communication protocol further limits a limitation claimed in the alternative. As Goldner in view of Seki makes obvious an alternative to the further limited option, Goldner in view of Seki makes obvious the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 36: Goldner in view of Seki makes obvious the above limitations. The limitation wherein the first file format or the second file format includes one of: a Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) format, a Portable Network Graphics (PNG) format, a Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) format, an MPEG format, a MPEG4 part 14 (MP4) format, an Audio Video Interleave (AVI) format, a QuickTime File Format (MOV) format, a Windows Media Video (WMV) format, or Flash Video (FLV) format further limits a limitation claimed in the alternative. As Goldner in view of Seki makes obvious an alternative to the further limited option, Goldner in view of Seki makes obvious the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 37: Goldner in view of Seki makes obvious the above limitations. Goldner further discloses determining, prior to preprocessing and based on at least one of metadata of the medical file fragments or pixel data of the medical file fragments, one or more parts of the medical file to be preprocessed (The agent 100 may include a variety of features designed to enforce compliance with a particular data transmission protocol. … For example, the agent may transmit the information to the data center 150 or core lab 160 only after compliance with one or more of the de-identification, transmission and compression steps. See at least [0044. Also: The method may include reinitiating the de-identification or formatting process if the textual information is determined not to be formatted or de-identified. See at least [0018]).
Claim(s) 31, 40, and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldner et al. (US 2009/0313170 A1) in view of Seki et al. (US 2001/0052003 A1), and further in view of Zhu et al. (US 2012/0124219 A1).
Regarding Claim 31, 40, and 48: Goldner in view of Seki makes obvious the above limitations. Goldner does not explicitly disclose routing the medical file fragments to the external network while receiving medical file fragments of another medical data file.
Zhu teaches routing the file to the external network while receiving another data file (Embodiments relate to data streaming capabilities between a server and a client. In a first embodiment, a computer implemented method provides a full-duplex capable client a capability to establish a full-duplex bi-directional communication stream over a remote procedure call based communication protocol by way of a single protocol connection. Full-duplex communication is initiated over a single protocol connection between the full-duplex capable client and a server via a network where the full-duplex capable client is configured to engage the server by sending an initial handshake to the server. A client request stream is streamed by the fall-duplex client to the server following an acceptance of the initial handshake by the server via the network over the single protocol connection. A response stream is accepted from the server over the single protocol connection while the full-duplex capable client streams the client request stream over the single protocol connection. The full-duplex bi-directional communication stream is enabled over the remote procedure call based communication protocol when the client request stream and the response stream communicate over the single protocol connection simultaneously. See at least [0006]. Also: a full-duplex capable server 102 may include a conventional web server, email server, or file transfer server. See at least [0018]).
Goldner and Seki suggests a system that manages the fragmented transmission of medical data files, upon which the claimed invention’s use of full-duplex channel can be seen as an improvement. However, Zhu demonstrates that the prior art already knew of transferring data via a full-duplex channel. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially applied the techniques of Zhu to the system of Goldner and Seki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Zhu would have resulted in an improved system which could receive medical file data at the same time as it sends medical file data. As such, the application of Zhu 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 Goldner and the teachings of Zhu.
Claim(s) 32, 33, and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldner et al. (US 2009/0313170 A1) in view of Seki et al. (US 2001/0052003 A1), and further in view of Agrawal et al. (US 4493021).
Regarding Claim 32: Goldner in view of Seki makes obvious the above limitations. Goldner does not explicitly disclose wherein respective ones of the medical file fragments include respective headers, individual ones of the respective headers including information to identify a position of a corresponding one of the respective medical file fragments in the medical data file. However, Agrawal teaches wherein respective ones of the file fragments include respective headers, individual ones of the respective headers including information to identify a position of a corresponding one of the respective file fragments in the data file (The host computer divides a message file into data blocks, the first byte of which signifies the block type. The host computer then attaches a header and trailer to every block. The header includes fields for the source and destination addresses, block position number, size and data type. The trailer includes an error detection code. See at least Column 2, Lines 52-58).
Goldner and Seki suggests a system that manages the fragmented transmission of medical data files, upon which the claimed invention’s use of a header can be seen as an improvement. However, Agrawal demonstrates that the prior art already knew of using headers for file fragments during fragmented file transmission. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially applied the techniques of Agrawal to the system of Goldner and Seki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Agrawal would have resulted in an improved system which would be able to use the additional information to more accurately reconstruct the file fragments. As such, the application of Agrawal 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 Goldner and the teachings of Agrawal.
Regarding Claim 33 and 50: Goldner in view of Seki makes obvious the above limitations. Goldner does not explicitly disclose wherein the respective ones of the medical file fragments further include respective fragment data and respective trailers. However, Agrawal teaches wherein the respective ones of the file fragments further include respective fragment data and respective trailers (The host computer divides a message file into data blocks, the first byte of which signifies the block type. The host computer then attaches a header and trailer to every block. The header includes fields for the source and destination addresses, block position number, size and data type. The trailer includes an error detection code. See at least Column 2, Lines 52-58).
Goldner and Seki suggests a system that manages the fragmented transmission of medical data files, upon which the claimed invention’s use of a trailer can be seen as an improvement. However, Agrawal demonstrates that the prior art already knew of using trailers for file fragments during fragmented file transmission. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially applied the techniques of Agrawal to the system of Goldner and Seki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Agrawal would have resulted in an improved system which would be able to use the additional information to more accurately reconstruct the file fragments. As such, the application of Agrawal 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 Goldner and the teachings of Agrawal.
Claim(s) 38 and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldner et al. (US 2009/0313170 A1) in view of Seki et al. (US 2001/0052003 A1), and further in view of Danner et al. (US 2009/0103789 A1).
Regarding Claim 38 and 49: Goldner in view of Seki makes obvious the above limitations. Goldner does not explicitly disclose the networking communication protocol includes at least one of WebSocket or Hypertext Transport Protocol Secure (HTTPS); the networking communication protocol allows full-duplex communication using a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection; the networking communication protocol uses a Secure Socket Layer (SSL) encryption or a Transport Layer Security (TLS) encryption; or the networking communication protocol uses a Secure Socket Layer (SSL) handshake or a Transport Layer Security (TLS) handshake. However, Danner teaches the networking communication protocol includes at least one of WebSocket or Hypertext Transport Protocol Secure (HTTPS); the networking communication protocol allows full-duplex communication using a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection; the networking communication protocol uses a Secure Socket Layer (SSL) encryption or a Transport Layer Security (TLS) encryption; or the networking communication protocol uses a Secure Socket Layer (SSL) handshake or a Transport Layer Security (TLS) handshake (The HTML page contains a call which causes the browser to load the control. The control allows the user to view the DICOM images in the browser directly from the server as illustrated with computer 70 in FIG. 1. The control also allows the user to manipulate the DICOM images, securely download images from the server using protocols such as HTTPs and SSL. See at least [0037]).
Goldner and Seki suggests a system that manages the fragmented transmission of medical data files, upon which the claimed invention’s use of HTTPS can be seen as an improvement. However, Danner demonstrates that the prior art already knew of using HTTPS to transmit medical data files. One of ordinary skill in the art could have trivially applied the techniques of Danner to the system of Goldner and Seki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Danner would have resulted in an improved system which would more securely transmit files. As such, the application of Danner 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 Goldner and the teachings of Danner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 112(b) Rejections of claims 26, 39, and 43: Independent claims 26, 39, and 43 have been amended.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's amendments filed 16 January 2026 have been fully considered and they resolve the identified issue.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 112(b) Rejections of claims 27: Claim 26 includes within its scope an instance where the configuring the apparatus with the threshold length could be performed by a processor and logic different from the ones that perform all the other functions recited in claim 26.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's argument filed 16 January 2026 have been fully considered and it is persuasive. The rejection under 112(b) of claim 27 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 102 rejection of claims 26, 39, and 43: ISI does not anticipate independent claim 26.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 16 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are rendered moot by the amendment of claims 26, 39, and 43.
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 of the prior office action dated 2 December 2024.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 2026-05-24
Prosecution Insights