DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 05/11/2026. Claims 1, 9, 11, 12, 14-17, and 19-20 have been amended, and claims 8, 10, and 18 are canceled. Claims 1-7, 9, 11-17, and 19-20 are currently examined below.
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 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites (additional limitations crossed out):
A
receiving,
compressing,
sending the compressed data
storing the compressed data
sending the compressed data to a user
receiving medical data
The above limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. That is, other than reciting the steps as being performed by a “computer”, an “agent module”, a “server”, and “intranet and Internet data connections” nothing in the claim precludes the steps as being described as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the “computer”, “agent module”, “server”, and “intranet and Internet data connections” language, the limitations describe a first entity retrieving data and compressing said data, relaying the compressed data to a second entity, storing the compressed data at the second entity, the second entity relaying the compressed data to a third entity, and the second entity receiving medical data from a fourth entity. The limitations describe the management of personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of an “agent module”, a “server”, “intranet and Internet data connections”, and “one or more computing devices” to perform the claimed steps. The “server” and “one or more computing devices” elements are recited at a high level of generality (see at least Paras. [0058]-[0062]) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. The “agent module” is not described as having any structure aside from being installed on a computing device. The “intranet and Internet data connections” merely serve to place the communication of data in a computer environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are therefore still directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an “agent module”, a “server”, “intranet and Internet data connections”, and “one or more computing devices” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9, and 11-15 are dependent on claim 1, and include all the limitations of claim 1. Claims 17,and 19-20 are dependent on claim 16, and include all the limitations of claim 16. Therefore, they are also found to be directed to an abstract idea. Claims 5 and 7 further describe the “intranet and Internet data connections”, however this merely serves to further describe elements that were found to merely place the communication of data into a computer environment. Claim 17 describes the “second one or more computing devices” as comprising PACS. However, this merely serves to place the abstract idea in a particular computer environment. The remaining dependent claims have not been found to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract idea since they merely further narrow the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “forming a second data package including all the plurality of images of the subject for the imaged procedure” does not appear to be supported by the specification. There is no mention of a second data package that includes all of the plurality of images after forming an initial data package with a portion of the plurality of images. (See claim 1’s limitation “compressing, at the agent module, the multi-frame medical image data by forming a data package including less than all of the plurality of images of the subject for the imaged procedure to form compressed data.”)
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “sending a return confirmation message, upon reconnection, to the image acquisition device informing to delete local copies of the multi-frame medical image data” does not appear to be supported by the specification. There is no mention of reconnection.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “compressing the multi-frame medical image data to form the compressed data comprises forming a second data package including all the plurality of images of the subject for the imaged procedure” does not appear to be supported by the specification. There is no mention of a second data package that includes all of the plurality of images after forming an initial data package with a portion of the plurality of images. (See claim 1’s limitation “compressing, at the agent module, the multi-frame medical image data by forming a data package including less than all of the plurality of images of the subject for the imaged procedure to form compressed data.”)
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-15, and 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “receiving medical data at the server from one or more computing devices…” is indefinite. The limitation is preceded by “receiving, at an agent module comprising a software plugin installed on a computing device…”. It is unclear if the computing device with the agent module is the same as the one or more computing devices providing the medical data. For sake of examination, the Examiner shall assume that they are separate computing devices to align with the language of independent claim 16.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, and 11-15 are rejected as well since they inherit the limitations of independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “forming a second data package including all the plurality of images of the subject for the imaged procedure” is indefinite. The limitation is preceded by claim 1’s limitations “compressing, at the agent module, the multi-frame medical image data by forming a data package including less than all of the plurality of images of the subject for the imaged procedure to form compressed data”, “sending the compressed data from the agent module to a server…” and “storing the compressed data at the server…”. It is unclear if the second data package truly includes all of the images, or if the second data package just includes all of the remaining images. In other words, if there are 10 images, and the first data package include images 1-5, would the second data package include images 1-10, or 6-10?
Claims 11, 15, and 20 have issues similar to those of claim 9 in regards to what the second data package is comprised of.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations “based on the agent module experiencing a disconnection of the DICOM communications session with the image acquisition device prior to receiving a DICOM storage commitment request from the image acquisition device indicating that all of the plurality of images have been sent:” and “sending a return confirmation message, upon reconnection, to the image acquisition device informing to delete local copies of the multi-frame medical image data” is indefinite. First, it is unclear if the disconnection occurs prior to all of the image data being received, or just prior to the storage commitment request. Further, in regards to the “reconnection” portion, it is unclear if the DICOM storage commitment request is ever received. Based on this, it is further unclear if the sending of the return confirmation message is based on reception of the DICOM storage commitment request (as seen in standard DICOM protocol), or if it is simply triggered by the disconnection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 15-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes (US 6,633,674) in view of Bruce (US 2015/0193579), “Supplement 119: Frame Level Retrieve SOP Classes” by DICOM Standards Committee, Working Group 6, available January 20, 2009, hereinafter referred to as DICOM1, and “DICOM P S3.5 2019a – Data Structures and Encoding”, available 2019, hereinafter referred to as NEMA.2.
Regarding claim 1, Barnes discloses A computer-implemented method for transferring multi-frame medical image data to a server, the method comprising:
receiving, at an agent module comprising a software plugin installed on a computing device positioned at a primary location, frames of multi-frame medical image data …via an intranet data connection from an image acquisition device also positioned at the primary location, the multi-frame medical image data comprising a plurality of images of a subject; (See at least Col. 3, Lines 27-36 – “In the illustrated embodiment, PACS 10 receives image data from several separate imaging systems designated by reference numerals 12, 14 and 16. As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, the imaging systems may be of various type and modality, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems, computed tomography (CT) systems, positron emission tomography (PET) systems, radio fluoroscopy (RF), computed radiography (CR), ultrasound systems, and so forth. Moreover, the systems may include processing stations or digitizing stations, such as equipment designed to provide digitized image data based upon existing film or hard copy images. It should also be noted that the systems supplying the image data to the PACS may be located locally with respect to the PACS, such as in the same institution or facility, or may be entirely remote from the PACS, such as in an outlying clinic or affiliated institution. In the latter case, the image data may be transmitted via any suitable network link, including open networks, proprietary networks, virtual private networks, and so forth.”, Col. 4, Lines 18-23 – “Where desired, such systems may be interfaced through data exchange software, or may be partially or fully integrated with the PACS system to provide access to data between the PACS database and radiology department or hospital databases, or to provide a 60 single cross-referencing database.”, Col. 5, Lines 3-8 – “The database entries, designated generally by reference numeral 40 in FIG. 2, will include cross-referenced information, including patient data 42, references to specific studies or examinations 43, references to specific procedures performed 44, references to anatomy imaged 45, and further references to specific image series 46 within the study or examination.”, and at least Col. 14, Lines 18-23 – “Similarly, multiframe images may be accommodated in the present technique. As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, such images typically comprise a number of separate images encoded by rows and columns, without separate descriptive headers (e.g. DICOM compliant headers) positioned between the separate images.”
Barnes does not disclose receiving the frames one by one in a sequential manner over a digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) communications session (See DICOM page 10 –“ Composite Instance Root Retrieve Service is a service within the DICOM Query/Retrieve Service class defined in Annex C. The retrieve capability of this service allows a DICOM AE to retrieve Composite 210 Instances or selected frames from a remote DICOM AE over a single Association or request the remote DICOM AE to initiate a transfer of Composite Object Instances or selected frames from image objects to another DICOM AE)”, and page 39 – “Where the frames to be retrieved and viewed are known in advance, - e.g. when they are referenced by an Image Reference Macro in a structured report, then they may be retrieved directly using either of the Composite Instance Root Retrieval Classes.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barnes to utilize the teachings of DICOM since they are all within the same field of endeavor (i.e., transmission of medical data), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Barnes partially discloses compressing, at the agent module, the multi-frame medical image data by forming a data package including less than all of the plurality of images of the subject for the imaged procedure to form compressed data; (Barnes discloses the compression of data. See at least Claim 1 – “an input device configured to receive uncompressed medical image data files including a descriptive header and image data, and to convert each of the uncompressed image data files to a hybrid compressed data file including uncompressed descriptive header data, compression header, and compressed image data” However, Barnes does not explicitly disclose forming a data package including less than all of the plurality of images of the subject for the imaged procedure. See NEMA, Section A.4.1. JPEG Image Compression – “If the object allows multi-frame images in the pixel data field, then each frame shall be encoded separately. Each fragment shall contain encoded data from a single-frame image.” Also see at least Section A.4. Transfer Syntaxes for Encapsulation of Encoded Pixel Data – “If encapsulated, it has the Value Representation OB and is an octet-stream resulting from one of the encoding processes. It contains the encoded pixel data stream fragmented into one or more ltem(s). This Pixel Data Stream may represent a Single or Multi-frame Image.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barnes to utilize the teachings of NEMA because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the use of DICOM standards in the realm of medical image transmission.)
Barnes partially discloses sending the compressed data from the agent module to a server over a first data transmission via an Internet data connection, wherein the first data transmission is utilized for sending image data and is dedicated for carrying the compressed data; (Barnes discloses sending compressed data to a server. See at least Claim 1 – “a data file server coupled to the input device for storing the hybrid compressed image data files”. However, Barnes does not explicitly recite that the server receives the compressed data via an Internet data connection. See Bruce, at least Para. [0029] – “In some implementations, the first client computer system 104 is connected to the first server computer system 101 or the second server computer system 102 ( or both) over the wired or wireless networks 120, e.g., the Internet.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barnes to utilize the Internet as taught by Barnes as it is well understood in the art that the Internet is used in computer to computer communication.
Barnes also discloses storing the compressed data at the server; (See at least Claim 1 – “a data file server coupled to the input device for storing the hybrid compressed image data files”)
Barnes also discloses sending the compressed data to a user terminal device; (See at least Claim 1 – “a client system coupled to the server, the client system being configured to receive the hybrid compressed data files and to uncompress the image data for output”)
Barnes does not explicitly disclose receiving medical data at the server from one or more computing devices positioned at the primary location over a second data transmission utilized for sending non-image data via the Internet data connection, wherein the first data transmission is separate from the second data transmission such that the image data is conveyed without delay from the medical data. (See Bruce at least Para. [0043] – “In some implementations, the first client computer system provides the patient-related information to the second server computer system before the additional medical imaging data is received from another computer system.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barnes to utilize the teachings of Bruce since the additional information may be used in the analysis of the image data.
Regarding claim 2, Barnes discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, at the server, instructions to send one or more images of the compressed data to a third computing device. (See at least Col 4, Lines 10-14 – “The information within database server 28 serves to facilitate storage and association of the image data files with one another, and to allow requesting clients to rapidly and accurately access image data files stored within the system.”, and Col. 4, Lines 60-63 – “Similarly, external clients, as designated at reference numeral 38, may be interfaced with the PACS to enable images to be viewed at remote locations.”)
Regarding claim 3, Barnes discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the image acquisition device is a computed tomography (CT) machine. (See at least Col. 3, Lines 28-36 – “In the illustrated embodiment, PACS 10 receives image data from several separate imaging systems designated by reference numerals 12, 14 and 16. As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, the imaging systems may be of various type and modality, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems, computed tomography (CT) systems, positron emission tomography (PET) systems, radio fluoroscopy (RF), computed radiography (CR), ultrasound systems, and so forth.”)
Regarding claim 4, Barnes discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the user terminal device is positioned at the primary location. (See at least Col. 3, Lines 59-64 – “The server is also coupled to internal clients, as indicated at reference numeral 22, each client typically including a work station at which a radiologist, physician, or clinician may access image data from the server, decompress the image data, and view or output the image data as desired.”)
Regarding claim 6, Barnes discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein compressing the multi-frame medical data to form the compressed data comprises using loss-less data compression. (See at least Col. 5, Lines 43-49 – “Each data set may be compressed in accordance with specific compression algorithms, including lossless compression algorithms as described below, lossy compression algorithms, wavelet algorithms, and the preferred compression code table-based optimal compression algorithm described below.”)
Regarding claim 9, Barnes partially discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:
the agent module continues to receive from the image acquisition device the frames of the multi-frame medical image data one by one in the sequential manner until all the frames of the plurality of images have been received; and
forming a second data package including all the plurality of images of the subject for the imaged procedure.
(See at least Col. 5, Lines 3-8 – “The database entries, designated generally by reference numeral 40 in FIG. 2, will include cross-referenced information, including patient data 42, references to specific studies or examinations 43, references to specific procedures performed 44, references to anatomy imaged 45, and further references to specific image series 46 within the study or examination.”, Claim 1 – “an input device configured to receive uncompressed medical image data files including a descriptive header and image data, and to convert each of the uncompressed image data files to a hybrid compressed data file including uncompressed descriptive header data, compression header, and compressed image data”, and Col. 14, Lines 18-23 – “Similarly, multiframe images may be accommodated in the present technique. As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, such images typically comprise a number of separate images encoded by rows and columns, without separate descriptive headers (e.g. DICOM compliant headers) positioned between the separate images.” However, as previously indicated, Barnes discloses that multiframe images may be accommodated, but does not state that frames of the multiframe images may be retrieved one by one in a sequential manner. See DICOM page 10 –“ Composite Instance Root Retrieve Service is a service within the DICOM Query/Retrieve Service class defined in Annex C. The retrieve capability of this service allows a DICOM AE to retrieve Composite 210 Instances or selected frames from a remote DICOM AE over a single Association or request the remote DICOM AE to initiate a transfer of Composite Object Instances or selected frames from image objects to another DICOM AE)”, and page 39 – “Where the frames to be retrieved and viewed are known in advance, - e.g. when they are referenced by an Image Reference Macro in a structured report, then they may be retrieved directly using either of the Composite Instance Root Retrieval Classes.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barnes, Bruce, DICOM, and NEMA to utilize the teachings of DICOM since they are all within the same field of endeavor (i.e., transmission of medical data), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 15, Barnes discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
prior to receiving, at the agent module, the multi-frame medical image data from the image acquisition device, establishing the DICOM communications session between the agent module and the image acquisition device; (See at least Col. 3, Lines 26-30 – “FIG. 1 illustrates a picture archive and communication system or PACS 10 for receiving, compressing and decompressing image data. In the illustrated embodiment, PACS 10 receives image data from several separate imaging systems designated by reference numerals 12, 14 and 16.”
subsequently receiving, at the agent module, frames of the multi-frame medical image data one by one in a sequential manner over the DICOM communications session with the image acquisition device until all the frames of the plurality of images have been received; (Barnes discloses that multiframe images may be accommodated, but does not state that frames of the multiframe images may be retrieved one by one in a sequential manner. See at least Col. 14, Lines 18-23 – “Similarly, multiframe images may be accommodated in the present technique. As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, such images typically comprise a number of separate images encoded by rows and columns, without separate descriptive headers (e.g. DICOM compliant headers) positioned between the separate images.” See DICOM page 10 –“ Composite Instance Root Retrieve Service is a service within the DICOM Query/Retrieve Service class defined in Annex C. The retrieve capability of this service allows a DICOM AE to retrieve Composite 210 Instances or selected frames from a remote DICOM AE over a single Association or request the remote DICOM AE to initiate a transfer of Composite Object Instances or selected frames from image objects to another DICOM AE)”, and page 39 – “Where the frames to be retrieved and viewed are known in advance, - e.g. when they are referenced by an Image Reference Macro in a structured report, then they may be retrieved directly using either of the Composite Instance Root Retrieval Classes.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barnes, Bruce, DICOM, and NEMA to utilize the teachings of DICOM since they are all within the same field of endeavor (i.e., transmission of medical data), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
compressing the multi-frame medical image data to form the compressed data comprises forming a second data package including all the plurality of images of the subject for the imaged procedure. (See at least Col. 5, Lines 3-8 – “The database entries, designated generally by reference numeral 40 in FIG. 2, will include cross-referenced information, including patient data 42, references to specific studies or examinations 43, references to specific procedures performed 44, references to anatomy imaged 45, and further references to specific image series 46 within the study or examination.”, Claim 1 – “an input device configured to receive uncompressed medical image data files including a descriptive header and image data, and to convert each of the uncompressed image data files to a hybrid compressed data file including uncompressed descriptive header data, compression header, and compressed image data”)
Claim 16 features limitations similar to those of claim 1, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, Barnes discloses The system of claim 16, wherein the one or more second computing devices comprise a picture archiving and communication system (PACS). (See at least Col. 3, Lines 26-28 – “FIG. 1 illustrates a picture archive and communication system or PACS 10 for receiving, compressing and decompressing image data.”
Claim 19 features limitations similar to those of claim 9, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes in view of Bruce, DICOM, and NEMA, and in further view of Du (US 2021/0106250)
Regarding claim 5, Barnes, Bruce, DICOM, and NEMA do not explicitly disclose The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein receiving the multi-frame medical image data over the intranet data connection from the image acquisition device comprises receiving the multi-frame medical image data over a direct-wired connection between the agent module and the image acquisition device. (See Du, Para. [0069] – “Alternatively, the MRI scanner can transmit the image data to the computer device for storage in the non-transitory memory of the computer device for subsequent use by the computer when the App. is run by the processor of the computer device (e.g. via a direct wired communication connection, a direct wireless communication connection, or a network communication connection).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barnes, Bruce, DICOM, and NEMA to utilize the teachings of Du since they are all within the same field of endeavor (i.e., transmission of medical data), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes (US 6,633,674) in view of Bruce, DICOM, and NEMS, and in further view of Keeney (US 6,647,149).
Regarding claim 7, Barnes discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein
receiving, at the agent module, the multi-frame medical image data over the intranet data connection from the image acquisition device comprises receiving the multi-frame medical image data over an unencrypted data connection at the primary location, (See at least Col. 3, Lines 28-36 – “In the illustrated embodiment, PACS 10 receives image data from several separate imaging systems designated by reference numerals 12, 14 and 16. As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, the imaging systems may be of various type and modality, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems, computed tomography (CT) systems, positron emission tomography (PET) systems, radio fluoroscopy (RF), computed radiography (CR), ultrasound systems, and so forth.”)
Barnes, Bruce, DICOM, and NEMA do not explicitly disclose sending the compressed data from the agent module to the server over the first data transmission via the Internet data connection comprises sending the compressed data over an encrypted data connection. (See Keeney Col. 4, Lines 40-43 – “For comparison purposes, FIG. 2A illustrates the typical prior art order, wherein an original image 10 is first compressed 112 and then encrypted (scrambled) 114, prior to being transmitted 116.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Barnes, Bruce, DICOM, and NEMA to utilize encrypted transmission as taught by Keeney since encryption of the compressed data may enhance security.
Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes in view of Bruce, DICOM, and NEMA, and in further view of Ozaki (US 2013/0215246)
Regarding claim 11, Barnes discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
caching the frames of the multi-frame medical image data at the agent module; (See at least Col. 3, Lines 50-53 – “Server 18 receives the image data through an input/output interface 19. Image data may be compressed in routines accessed through a compression/decompression interface 20.”, and Col. 4, Lines 18-23 – “Techniques for transferring image data between server 18, and any memory associated with server 18 forming a short term storage system, and archive 30, may follow any suitable data management scheme, such as to archive image data following review and dictation by a radiologist, or after a sufficient time has lapsed since the receipt or review of the image files.”
after receiving a DICOM storage commitment request from the image acquisition device indicating that all of the plurality of images have been sent:
compressing, at the agent module, the multi-frame medical image data to form a second data package; and
sending a return confirmation message to the image acquisition device informing to delete local copies of the multi-frame medical image data.
In light of the 112 rejection above, Barnes and Ozaki teach this. Barnes discloses the compression of image data (see at least claim 1). However Barnes does not disclose the remaining limitations. See Ozaki, Para. [0128] – “In the process of requesting a storage commitment in step 240, the endoscope apparatus 2 sends to the image server 5 a message requesting a storage commitment, and after the reception (storage) by the image server 5 is confirmed, medical images whose requests for a storage commitment are completed, the medical images being stored in the memory 8 within the endoscope apparatus 2, are deleted.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Barnes, Bruce, DICOM, and NEMA to utilize the teachings of Ozaki since it is part of the DICOM standard (Para. [0126]).
Claim 20 features limitations similar to those of claim 11, and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes in view of Bruce, DICOM, and NEMA, and in further view of Suehling (US 2019/0108917)
Regarding claim 13, Barnes, Bruce, DICOM, and NEMA do not disclose The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, at the agent module, a request for a modality worklist from the image acquisition device according to a digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) protocol, wherein the modality worklist includes an itemized list of imaging procedures scheduled to be performed by the image acquisition device; and
sending, by the agent module to the image acquisition device, the modality worklist over the intranet data connection.
(See Suehling, Para. [0075] – “A procedure order can be in the form of a modality worklist and/or can include e.g. information about an admitting diagnosis. The items in the worklist can include relevant details about the subject of the procedure (patient ID, name, sex, and age), the type of procedure (equipment type, procedure description, procedure code) and the procedure order (referring physician, accession number, reason for exam). A medical imaging system or device, such as a CT scanner, can e.g. query a database or information system, such as a Radiology Information System (RIS), to get this information which can e.g. then be presented to the system operator and can e.g. be used by the medical imaging system to add details in the image metadata. A particular example of such a modality worklist would be a DICOM modality worklist in the DICOM standard. In other words, the specific clinical context for which an imaging exam, e.g. a CT exam is ordered can be defined from the modality worklist information or by manual input at the imaging device, e.g. at the CT scanner.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barnes, Bruce, DICOM, and NEMA to utilize the teachings of Suehling since it would eliminate the need for the manual input of patient demographic information.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes in view of Bruce, DICOM, NEMA, and Suehling, and in further view of “Policies and procedures for handling “repeat” images”, by Ashley Thomas, available July 2021, hereinafter referred to as Thomas3
Regarding claim 14, Barnes, Bruce, DICOM, NEMA, and Suehling do not explicitly disclose The computer-implemented method of claim 13, and the method further comprises:
determining an examination number for the imaged procedure from the itemized list of imaging procedures in the modality worklist; and
associating the examination number with the multi-frame medical image data to link the plurality of images to the imaged procedure.
See Ashley, Page 1 “If the original exam has not been completed in Cerner. The technologist should put the additional images under the same accession. Example: A patient has a CT Abdomen and Pelvis w/o contrast, but the entire pelvis was not scanned. When this happens, the technologist should place the additional images under the same/original accession number.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Barnes, Bruce, and Suehling to utilize the teachings of Thomas as it would ensure that images are associated with the proper patient.
Examiner Notes
No prior art could be found at this time for claim 12. Examiner had previously issued 112(b) rejection indicating that it was unclear if all of the local copies of the multi-frame medical image data was to be deleted, or if it was just limited to data that was successfully received. Applicant stated in response that “it is clear as written that this includes any local copies (whether sent or not)”. Further, as indicated above, claim 12 has received 112(a) and (b) rejections for lack of support and clarity. Therefore, claim 12 has been tentatively interpreted as, to paraphrase, “as a result of a disconnection occurring during transfer of the images, the receiving device shall compress the received images, and send a confirmation message to the sending device immediately upon reconnection (despite not receiving a storage commitment request) to inform to delete all local copies of the images, whether successfully sent or not.” No prior art could be found since this appears to be atypical of DICOM protocol where a return confirmation would only be sent after receiving a storage commitment request.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and that the claims feature “specific machine-to-machine protocol orchestrations”. This is not persuasive. The recitation of the “machines” merely serves to place the judicial exception into a computer environment.
Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application. Applicant’s arguments concerning the local positioning of the agent module, and concerning separate transmissions are not persuasive as the functioning capabilities of any involved computing elements remain unchanged.
Applicant argues that forming packages with less than all of the plurality of images is an unconventional step. This is not persuasive as this limitation is part of the abstract idea itself.
Applicant argues that separate transmission provide significantly more. This is not persuasive. As stated above, the functioning capabilities of any involved computing elements remain unchanged. The transmission of less data (i.e., less than the plurality of images) does not somehow result in an improvement to data transmission.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant argues that “it is clear as written that the disconnection occurs prior to receiving the storage commitment request which would indicate that all of the images have been sent”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation states “based on the agent module experiencing a disconnection of the DICOM communications session with the image acquisition device prior to receiving a DICOM storage commitment request from the image acquisition device indicating that all of the plurality of images have been sent”. This does not limit the disconnection to occurring after all the images have been sent. If anything, the claim indicates that the disconnection occurs before the DICOM storage commitment request has been received which may include a time before all the images are sent.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant argues that reference NEMA does not disclose “compressing, at the agent module, the multi-frame medical image data by forming a data package including less than all of the plurality of images of the subject for the imaged procedure to form compressed data”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments state, in part, “The requirement stated by NEMA, that frames be encoded separately and encapsulated, applies to encapsulated (compressed) pixel data. When images are compressed, DICOM breaks the data into fragments.” (emphasis added by Examiner) Said “fragments” equate to “less than all of the plurality of images” since each fragment represents a portion of an image. In other words, an incomplete image is less than all of the plurality of images. Applicant further argues that claim 1 “focuses on transmission strategy where the agent module batches a subset of frames of the imaged procedure into a “data package” to allow a user terminal to begin viewing portions of an imaged procedure without waiting for all images of the imaged procedure (e.g., a 1000-frame set) to complete.” However, this is not reflected in the actual claim language. Based on this, NEMA in combination with Barnes, is found to teach the limitation.
Applicant appears to argue that Barnes, Bruce, DICOM, and NEMA do not different transmission channels for the separate transmission of image data and medical data. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the body of the rejection above, paragraph [0043] of Bruce states, in part, “In some implementations, the first client computer system provides the patient-related information to the second server computer system before the additional medical imaging data is received from another computer system.” Bruce clearly describes receiving patient-related information (i.e., medical data) in a transmission separate from transmitted medical imaging data (i.e., image data).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 KYLE G ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9261. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 4:30 EST; Friday 7:00-11:00 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.
/KYLE G ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
1 Available at https://www.dicomstandard.org/News-dir/ftsup/docs/sups/sup119.pdf
2 Available at https://dicom.nema.org/medical/dicom/2019a/output/chtml/part05/sect_A.4.html
3 Available at https://www.uab.edu/medicine/radiology/images/Policies__Procedures/Added_Images_Policy.pdf
Prosecution Insights