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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 4/9/2026, which incorporated the amendments and remarks filed on 3/9/2026. Claims 1, 19, and 31 have been amended. Claims 1-31 are present for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/2026 with respect to claims 7, 14, and 25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 7 and 25:
Applicant submits that The 2D image data is streamed ... in real time ... as the renderer produces it." Applicant also argues that Reicher does not teach streaming dynamically as produced by the renderer, and the process in Reicher is a batch-and-gate workflow, where rendering is optional and contingent on rule reconciliation, and images are not automatically forwarded. Applicant further submits that Reicher does not describe the rendered 2D image data flowing dynamically to the display as the renderer produces it but interposes multiple decision and rule-application steps between rendering and transmission, and a POSITA would understand that Reicher’s FIG. 4 workflow introduces latency and rule-gating between rendering and transmission that is incompatible with the claimed dynamic, production-contemporaneous streaming. (See Remarks filed on 3/9/2026, pp. 12-14.)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Nowhere in claim 7 requires the 2D image data being streamed in "real time" or "automatically". In fact, claim 7 recites “streaming respective 2D image data to the display system dynamically as the respective 2D image data is produced by the renderer.” The term “dynamically” does not mean “immediately”. Therefore, the above limitation of claim 7 can be interpreted as streaming the 2D image data to the display system after it is produced by the renderer. MPEP 2144.05 states where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Reicher discloses transmitting the images after rendering to the viewing device after applying transfer rules (FIG. 4), indicates when the transfer rules apply, the image data is dynamically transmitted as it was rendered (instead of being kept from transferring by statically stayed at where it is rendered), which teaches "streaming respective 2D image data to the display system dynamically as the respective 2D image data is produced by the renderer" because its conditioned streaming overlaps with claim 7's unconditioned streaming. Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 7 is not persuasive.
Regarding claim 14:
Applicant submits that claim 14 recites a specific integrated system architecture: an X-ray screening system as the data source, server-side renderers that generate 2D data from the X-ray 3D data, a streaming pipeline to deliver that 2D data over a network, and a viewer with a GUI for user interaction. Reicher does not include a data source that provides 3D image data “generated by an X-ray screening system” as claim 14 recites, Morton's X-ray screening system lacks the streaming architecture from renderers to a remote viewer, and they cannot be combined without impermissible hindsight. (See Remarks filed on 3/9/2026, pp. 14-15.)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Reicher discloses image data including X-ray data including image series and rendering X-ray data ([0088]-[0089]). Morton discloses X-Ray screening system ([0010]) and three-dimensional x-ray data depicting a three-dimensional object (para. [0056]). It would be obvious to combine Reicher and Morton so that Morton can provide 3D image data “generated by an X-ray screening system” to Reicher's rendering and streaming system and provide image reconstruction with reduced scan does, computation complexity, and data bandwidth (see Morton, [0025]).
Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 1-7, 13, 19-25, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 20170200270 A1 to Reicher et al. in view of US Patent Publication No. 20170161922 A1 to Morton and US Patent Publication No. 20160171828 A1 to Boudreau et al.
Regarding claim 1, Reicher discloses A method (Reicher, Abstract), comprising:
setting an image renderer at least partially based on a resolution of a display system (Reicher, para. [0140], disclosing accessing and determining rules, the system may then render images based on the rules, FIG. 3A, showing rules including device rules such as display preferences, para. [0151], disclosing rendering may include any type of image generation or modification, para. [0158], disclosing the images may be rendered via in locations determined based on user-defined rules, CAP results, attributes of a viewing device (e.g., screen resolution, locations of the device), and/or various other factors, para. [0183], disclosing the rendering device will determine relevant rendering parameters from rules, data attributes, and/or environment variables (such as display resolution));
generating, via the set image renderer, 2D image data of a 2D image representing an item at least partially based on 3D image data of a 3D image representing the item (Reicher, para. [0140], disclosing accessing and determining rules, the system may then render images based on the rules, para. [0146], disclosing volume rendering of a patient’s abdominal aortic aneurysm, para. [0159], disclosing 2D images may be rendered from 3D image data, such as obtaining 3D image data of a fetus, which may be rendered into one or more 2D images, para. [0183], disclosing the rendering device will determine relevant rendering parameters from rules, data attributes, and/or environment variables (such as display resolution), when ready, the system will render images); and
streaming, via a network connection, the 2D image data to the display system (Reicher, para. [0111], disclosing remote viewing devices configured to download, store, display, and allow user interaction with medical images, para. [0115], disclosing the viewing devices include communication interfaces with a network coupled to imaging center, para. [0141], disclosing transferring rendered images to the viewing device).
However, although Reicher discloses processing and rendering X-Ray data (Reicher, para. [0088], disclosing images series including two or more images such as different x-ray projections of the chest, para. [0089], disclosing the image data including x-ray images), Reicher does not expressly disclose wherein the 3D image data of the 3D image representing the item is X-ray image data. In addition, Reicher does not expressly disclose the image renderer being set to generate 2D image data at a quality corresponding to the resolution of the display system.
On the other hand, Morton discloses generating 2D image data of a 2D image representing an item at least partially based on 3D image data of a 3D image representing the item, wherein the 3D image data of the 3D image representing the item is X-ray image data (Morton, para. [0030], disclosing converting x-ray projection data into 2- or 3-dimensional tomographic x-ray image, para. [0031], disclosing the data visualization engine takes the image data and renders it to a human readable screen by performing functions such as three-dimensional projection into a two-dimensional image, para. [0056], disclosing three-dimensional x-ray data depicting a three-dimensional object, para. [0057], disclosing 2D images can be generated and dispatched to the operator).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Reicher and Morton. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a system that can dynamically altering the image reconstruction methods based on both the properties of the object under investigation and the quality of the inspection decision to provide reduction of scan dose, reduction of computation complexity and reduction of data bandwidth, as suggested by Morton (see Morton, para. [0025]).
However, Reicher or Morton does not expressly disclose the image renderer being set to generate 2D image data at a quality corresponding to the resolution of the display system.
On the other hand, Boudreau discloses the image renderer being set to generate 2D image data at a quality corresponding to the resolution of the display system (Boudreau, para. [0021], disclosing the server may render an image with a particular display resolution based on display characteristics of the device, para. [0033], disclosing the image may be rendered based on the type of device and may include rendering an image to match a display resolution of a display, indicating the renderer to render the image can be set to generate 2D image data at a quality (a particular resolution) corresponding to the resolution of the display (to match the display resolution)).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Reicher in view of Morton with Boudreau. The suggestion/motivation would have been to avoid user to illegitimately manipulate data and simplify the client device operations, as suggested by Boudreau (see Boudreau, para. [0016]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Reicher, Morton, and Boudreau discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: further setting the image renderer or setting a further image renderer at least partially based on one or more of: a state of the display system, a state of a data source, a state of a network connection, or a state of the image renderer (Reicher, para. [0100], disclosing transfer rules and display rules associated with viewing, processing, storing, printing, and/or otherwise manipulating or managing medical data such as medical images, para. [0101], disclosing transfer and display rules based on one or more of client (or viewing device) properties, connection properties, site properties, user properties, exam properties, and/or temporal properties, para. [0122], disclosing rules may include rules for rendering of images with particular characteristics, para. [0140], disclosing at block 432, the default/user/site/etc. rules may include an optional block to execute one or more CAP processes, examples of executing CAP processes are described below in reference to FIG. 7 and other figures, at block 434, the system may optionally render images based on determined display rules or the results of block 432, indicating viewing device properties can correspond to a state of the display system, the connection properties can correspond to the state of a network connection, and determining display rules can correspond to further setting the image renderer based on one or more of: a state of the display system, a state of a network connection); generating, via the further set image renderer or set further image renderer, further 2D image data at least partially based on the 3D image data (Reicher, para. [0140], disclosing at block 432, the default/user/site/etc. rules may include an optional block to execute one or more CAP processes, examples of executing CAP processes are described below in reference to FIG. 7 and other figures, at block 434, the system may optionally render images based on determined display rules or the results of block 432); and streaming, via the network connection, the further 2D image data to the display system (Reicher, para. [0111], disclosing remote viewing devices configured to download, store, display, and allow user interaction with medical images, para. [0115], disclosing the viewing devices include communication interfaces with a network coupled to imaging center, para. [0141], disclosing transferring rendered images to the viewing device).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Reicher, Morton, and Boudreau discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the 3D image data comprises slices of a 3D volume (Reicher, para. [0087], disclosing medical images reconstructed and/or rendered from 3D or volumetric image data, para. [0144], disclosing dataset representing a series of medical images encompassing a volume of tissue, para. [0159], disclosing 2D images may be rendered from 3D image data, 2D slice images from 3D medical imaging data).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Reicher, Morton, and Boudreau discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: streaming, via the network connection or a further network connection, image slices of a 3D volume to the image render (Reicher, para. [0106], disclosing transferring source images including thin slices to a 3D rendering server, para. [0109], disclosing PACS server receives and stores images from multiple sources and can render certain medical images for display, para. [0115], disclosing the network coupled to imaging center, a PACS server, computing devices, para. [0146], disclosing transferring image series to a rendering server, para. [0159], disclosing 2D images may be rendered from 3D image data, 2D slice images from 3D medical imaging data).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Reicher, Morton, and Boudreau discloses the method of claim 4, wherein streaming the image slices of the 3D volume to the image renderer comprises: streaming respective image slices of the 3D volume to the image render dynamically as the respective image slices are produced by an X-ray screening system (Morton, para. [0055], disclosing a 3D engine component is coupled to the system, one 3D engine per X-ray system, the 3D engine processes the full three-dimensional data set that is generated by the X-ray system in real time, indicating the respective image slices of the 3D volume are streamed dynamically to the 3D engine as the image render as they are produced by the X-ray system as the X-ray screening system so that the 3D engine can process them in real time). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Reicher and Morton. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a system that can dynamically altering the image reconstruction methods based on both the properties of the object under investigation and the quality of the inspection decision to provide reduction of scan dose, reduction of computation complexity and reduction of data bandwidth, and provide real time generation of data set, as suggested by Morton (see Morton, para. [0025] and para. [0055]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Reicher, Morton, and Boudreau discloses the method of claim 4, wherein streaming the image slices of the 3D volume to the image renderer comprises: streaming respective image slices of the 3D volume to the image render as the respective image slices become available (Morton, para. [0055], disclosing a 3D engine component is coupled to the system, one 3D engine per X-ray system, the 3D engine processes the full three-dimensional data set that is generated by the X-ray system in real time, indicating the respective image slices of the 3D volume are streamed to the 3D engine as the respective image slices become available so that the 3D engine can process them in real time). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Reicher and Morton. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a system that can dynamically altering the image reconstruction methods based on both the properties of the object under investigation and the quality of the inspection decision to provide reduction of scan dose, reduction of computation complexity and reduction of data bandwidth, and provide real time generation of data set, as suggested by Morton (see Morton, para. [0025] and para. [0055]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Reicher, Morton, and Boudreau discloses the method of claim 1, wherein streaming, via the network connection, the 2D image data to the display system comprises: streaming respective 2D image data to the display system dynamically as the respective 2D image data is produced by the renderer (Reicher, FIG. 4, showing after rendering images, transmitting the images, para. [0141], disclosing transferring rendered images to the viewing device, para. [0159], disclosing 2D images may be rendered from 3D image data, such as obtaining 3D image data of a fetus, which may be rendered into one or more 2D images, indicating the rendered 2D image data will be transmitted/streamed to the viewing device as the display system dynamically as the respective 2D image data is produced by the renderer).
PNG
media_image1.png
780
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Reicher, Morton, and Boudreau discloses the method of claim 1, setting the image renderer or a further image renderer at least partially based on a further resolution for a further display system (Reicher, para. [0111], disclosing each of the PACS workstations and the remote viewing device is part of a respective display environment, where the display environment for each device may also include attributes such as a network connection speed, display device characteristics, allotted and/or available storage space, processing speed, and/or other attributes that may affect how medical data is downloaded, stored, and/or viewed by the devices, para. [0140], disclosing accessing and determining rules, the system may then render images based on the rules, FIG. 3A, showing rules including device rules such as display preferences, para. [0151], disclosing rendering may include any type of image generation or modification, para. [0158], disclosing the images may be rendered via in locations determined based on user-defined rules, CAP results, attributes of a viewing device (e.g., screen resolution, locations of the device), and/or various other factors, para. [0183], disclosing the rendering device will determine relevant rendering parameters from rules, data attributes, and/or environment variables (such as display resolution), Morton, para. [0061], disclosing a network of operators can inspect 2D pre-rendered images and 3D image data, indicating the renderer can be at least partially based on a further resolution for a further display system for a different remote viewing device or PACS workstation or a different operator); generating, via the set image renderer or the set further image renderer, further 2D image data of the 2D image representing the item at least partially based on 3D image data of the 3D image representing the item, wherein the 3D image data of the 3D image representing the item is X-ray image data (Reicher, para. [0140], disclosing accessing and determining rules, the system may then render images based on the rules, para. [0146], disclosing volume rendering of a patient’s abdominal aortic aneurysm, para. [0159], disclosing 2D images may be rendered from 3D image data, such as obtaining 3D image data of a fetus, which may be rendered into one or more 2D images, para. [0183], disclosing the rendering device will determine relevant rendering parameters from rules, data attributes, and/or environment variables (such as display resolution), when ready, the system will render images, Morton, para. [0030], disclosing converting x-ray projection data into 2- or 3-dimensional tomographic x-ray image, para. [0031], disclosing the data visualization engine takes the image data and renders it to a human readable screen by performing functions such as three-dimensional projection into a two-dimensional image, para. [0056], disclosing three-dimensional x-ray data depicting a three-dimensional object, para. [0057], disclosing 2D images can be generated and dispatched to the operator); and streaming, via the network connection or a further network connection, the further 2D image data to the display system (Reicher, para. [0111], disclosing remote viewing devices configured to download, store, display, and allow user interaction with medical images, para. [0115], disclosing the viewing devices include communication interfaces with a network coupled to imaging center, para. [0141], disclosing transferring rendered images to the viewing device, Morton, para. [0061], disclosing a network of operators can inspect 2D pre-rendered images and 3D image data, indicating the further 2D image data can be streamed via network connection or a further network connection to the display system). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Reicher and Morton. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a system that can dynamically altering the image reconstruction methods based on both the properties of the object under investigation and the quality of the inspection decision to provide reduction of scan dose, reduction of computation complexity and reduction of data bandwidth, as suggested by Morton (see Morton, para. [0025]).
Regarding claim 19, it recites similar limitations of claim 1 but in an apparatus form. The rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to reject claim 19. In addition, Reicher discloses a processor and a memory (Reicher, para. [0012], disclosing the viewing devices/servers include one or more CPU, para. [0113], disclosing the viewing devices include one or more memory, para. [0139], disclosing the method can be performed by a device such as the PACS server or EMR system).
Regarding claim 20, it recites similar limitations of claim 2 but in an apparatus form. The rationale of claim 2 rejection is applied to reject claim 20. In addition, Reicher discloses a processor and a memory (Reicher, para. [0012], disclosing the viewing devices/servers include one or more CPU, para. [0113], disclosing the viewing devices include one or more memory, para. [0139], disclosing the method can be performed by a device such as the PACS server or EMR system).
Regarding claim 21, it recites similar limitations of claim 3 but in an apparatus form. The rationale of claim 3 rejection is applied to reject claim 21. In addition, Reicher discloses a processor and a memory (Reicher, para. [0012], disclosing the viewing devices/servers include one or more CPU, para. [0113], disclosing the viewing devices include one or more memory, para. [0139], disclosing the method can be performed by a device such as the PACS server or EMR system).
Regarding claim 22, it recites similar limitations of claim 4 but in an apparatus form. The rationale of claim 4 rejection is applied to reject claim 22. In addition, Reicher discloses a processor and a memory (Reicher, para. [0012], disclosing the viewing devices/servers include one or more CPU, para. [0113], disclosing the viewing devices include one or more memory, para. [0139], disclosing the method can be performed by a device such as the PACS server or EMR system).
Regarding claim 23, it recites similar limitations of claim 5 but in an apparatus form. The rationale of claim 5 rejection is applied to reject claim 23. In addition, Reicher discloses a processor and a memory (Reicher, para. [0012], disclosing the viewing devices/servers include one or more CPU, para. [0113], disclosing the viewing devices include one or more memory, para. [0139], disclosing the method can be performed by a device such as the PACS server or EMR system).
Regarding claim 24, it recites similar limitations of claim 6 but in an apparatus form. The rationale of claim 6 rejection is applied to reject claim 24. In addition, Reicher discloses a processor and a memory (Reicher, para. [0012], disclosing the viewing devices/servers include one or more CPU, para. [0113], disclosing the viewing devices include one or more memory, para. [0139], disclosing the method can be performed by a device such as the PACS server or EMR system).
Regarding claim 25, it recites similar limitations of claim 7 but in an apparatus form. The rationale of claim 7 rejection is applied to reject claim 25. In addition, Reicher discloses a processor and a memory (Reicher, para. [0012], disclosing the viewing devices/servers include one or more CPU, para. [0113], disclosing the viewing devices include one or more memory, para. [0139], disclosing the method can be performed by a device such as the PACS server or EMR system).
Regarding claim 31, it recites similar limitations of claim 13 but in an apparatus form. The rationale of claim 13 rejection is applied to reject claim 31. In addition, Reicher discloses a processor and a memory (Reicher, para. [0012], disclosing the viewing devices/servers include one or more CPU, para. [0113], disclosing the viewing devices include one or more memory, para. [0139], disclosing the method can be performed by a device such as the PACS server or EMR system).
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reicher et al. in view of Morton.
Regarding claim 14, Reicher discloses A system (Reicher, Abstract), comprising:
a data source to provide 3D image data of an item (Reicher, FIG. 1, showing Imaging Center Computing device, para. [0098], disclosing devices may generate and/or store medical data, including medical images of varying types, formats, etc., from various imaging devices, para. [0159], disclosing obtaining 3D image data of a fetus);
one or more image renderers to generate 2D image data of an item at least partially based on 3D image data of the item provided by the data source or at least partially based on image slices taken from 3D image data of the item (Reicher, para. [0140], disclosing accessing and determining rules, the system may then render images based on the rules, para. [0146], disclosing volume rendering of a patient’s abdominal aortic aneurysm, para. [0159], disclosing 2D images may be rendered from 3D image data, such as obtaining 3D image data of a fetus, which may be rendered into one or more 2D images);
an image viewer to receive a stream of 2D image data generated by the one or more image renderers and present a 2D image based on the streamed 2D image data (Reicher, para. [0111], disclosing remote viewing devices configured to download, store, display, and allow user interaction with medical images, para. [0115], disclosing the viewing devices include communication interfaces with a network coupled to imaging center, para. [0141], disclosing transferring rendered images to the viewing device, para. [0159], disclosing 2D images may be rendered from 3D image data, such as obtaining 3D image data of a fetus, which may be rendered into one or more 2D images);
a network connection to carry streamed 2D image data to the image viewer (Reicher, FIG. 1A, showing network connecting all devices and systems including the remote viewing device and PACS workstations); and
a graphical user interface to enable a user to interact with the 2D image presented at the image viewer (Reicher, para. [0114], disclosing providing a graphical user interface (GUI), includes one or more display panes in which medical images may be displayed, the medical images may be manipulated by one or more application modules, para. [0187], disclosing a user may interactively re-orient, zoom, color, highlight, annotate, comment, or perform any semantically and/or visually enhancing operations, para. [0212], disclosing rendering the user interface, and the user may interact with the user interface).
However, although Reicher discloses processing and rendering X-Ray data (Reicher, para. [0088], disclosing images series including two or more images such as different x-ray projections of the chest, para. [0089], disclosing the image data including x-ray images), Reicher does not expressly disclose the 3D image data of an item generated by an X-ray screening system.
On the other hand, Morton discloses a data source to provide 3D image data of an item generated by an X-ray screening system (Morton, FIG. 1, showing X-ray sources and detectors, para. [0010], disclosing a plurality of X-ray systems for inspecting one or more object by using X-rays and producing at least one three-dimensional (3D) image of each object).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Reicher and Morton. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a system that can dynamically altering the image reconstruction methods based on both the properties of the object under investigation and the quality of the inspection decision to provide reduction of scan dose, reduction of computation complexity and reduction of data bandwidth, as suggested by Morton (see Morton, para. [0025]).
Regarding claim 15, Reicher in view of Morton discloses the system of claim 14, comprising: a management agent to: determine a state of one or more of the data source, a state of the one or more image renderers, a state of the network connection, or a state of the image viewer (Reicher, para. [0123], disclosing transfer and display rules for downloading, viewing, printing, storing, deleting, and/or managing medical data, para. [0124], disclosing client properties including capabilities of a viewing device, connection properties between the viewing device and the internet, para. [0126], disclosing the rules based on exam properties such as exam type, imaging device, para. [0129], disclosing rules associated with attributes/properties may be considered in determining if, when, and/or how, medical images, such as thin slices, are transferred, presented for viewing, viewed, stored, printed, etc., para. [0139], disclosing reconciling different rules to determine a set of transfer and display rules based on rules associated with one or more of the viewing environment, the viewer, the site, the connection, and/or the client, the method is performed by a device that stores the medical images such as the PACS server or EMR system, para. [0140], disclosing determining the rules based on the default/user/site/etc. rules considering the properties of the viewing environment, the connection, the exam, and/or the client etc., the computing device reconciles the rules to determine transfer and display rules for a particular image or image series or medical data, the system may render images based on determined display rules, indicating the device performing the method can include a management agent (which determines the rules ), the default/user/site rules may correspond to a state of one or more of the data source, a state of the one or more image renderers, a state of the network connection, or a state of the image viewer and being determined before rendering the image, where the computing device can be a management agent); and generate instructions at least partially based on determined states (Reicher, para. [0139], disclosing reconciling different rules to determine a set of transfer and display rules based on rules associated with one or more of the viewing environment, the viewer, the site, the connection, and/or the client, para. [0140], disclosing determining the rules based on the default/user/site/etc. rules considering the properties of the viewing environment, the connection, the exam, and/or the client etc., the computing device reconciles the rules to determine transfer and display rules for a particular image or image series or medical data, the system may render images based on determined display rules, indicating the determined rules can correspond to the instructions generated at least partially based on the determined states according to the different default/user/site/etc. rules).
Regarding claim 16, Reicher in view of Morton discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the instructions generated by the management agent comprise: an instruction to change an image metric (Reicher, para. [0159], disclosing transfer and display rules based on user preference, when the original image set does not meet the user preference, the image set is reformatted accordingly, indicating the transfer and display rules as the instructions can comprise an instruction to reformat the image set as changing an image metric).
Regarding claim 17, Reicher in view of Morton discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the instructions generated by the management agent comprise: an instruction to change a data metric (Reicher, para. [0159], disclosing transfer and display rules based on user preference, when the original image set does not meet the user preference, the image set is reformatted accordingly, indicating the transfer and display rules as the instructions can comprise an instruction to reformat the image set as changing a data metric because original image set can be considered as data).
Regarding claim 18, Reicher in view of Morton discloses the system of claim 15, comprising: one or more monitors to: obtain information about one or more of: the data source, the one or more image renderers, the network connection, or the image viewer (Reicher, para. [0139], disclosing the method including reconciling rules can be performed by a device such as PACS server or EMR system, para. [0160], disclosing display rules having conditions and associated actions, rule 602 specifies when a rendering device gets an image set having each slice less than 0.5 mm thick, it will reformat the image set to output a slab having thickness 3 mm, and other conditional rules based on the data source, indicating the conditions/information about the data source are monitored to determine the display rules by the device including a monitor that can determine the state of the data source); and provide the information to the management agent, wherein the management agent determines the states at least partially based on the information provided by the monitors (Reicher, para. [0159], disclosing transfer and display rules based on user preference, when the original image set does not meet the user preference, the image set is reformatted accordingly, para. [0160], disclosing display rules having conditions and associated actions, rule 602 specifies when a rendering device gets an image set having each slice less than 0.5 mm thick, it will reformat the image set to output a slab having thickness 3 mm, and other conditional rules based on the data source, indicating the conditions/information about the data source are monitored and the states of the data source is determined based on the monitored conditions, and the transfer and display rule are determined accordingly).
Claim(s) 8-12 and 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Reicher, Morton, and Boudreau as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN105916052A to Cheng et al.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Reicher, Morton, and Boudreau discloses the method of claim 1. However, Reicher, Morton, or Boudreau does not expressly disclose responsive to a state of the network connection: changing a further 2D image data; and streaming, via the network connection, the changed 2D image data to the display system.
On the other hand, Cheng discloses responsive to a state of the network connection: changing a further 2D image data (Cheng, para. [0042], disclosing monitoring the network status of the video initiator, when the network status is good and the network delay is lower than a preset threshold, the resolution of the current picture can be increased to increase the clarity of the picture, when the network status is poor and the network delay is higher than a preset threshold, the resolution of the current picture can be lowered to ensure the smoothness of the picture); and streaming, via the network connection, the changed 2D image data to the display system (Cheng, para. [0042], disclosing the resolution of each frame and the frame rate transmitted between two adjacent frames determine the quality of the video, the higher the resolution of each frame, the clearer the video will be, but it will take up more network resources and have higher requirements on the network status, monitoring the network status of the video initiator, when the network status is good and the network delay is lower than a preset threshold, the resolution of the current picture can be increased to increase the clarity of the picture, when the network status is poor and the network delay is higher than a preset threshold, the resolution of the current picture can be lowered to ensure the smoothness of the picture, indicating the images/frames can be adjusted based on the network status and streamed via the network connection to the display system).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine the combination of Reicher, Morton, and Boudreau with Cheng. The suggestion/motivation would have been to ensure the smoothness of the picture, as suggested by Cheng (see Cheng, para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Reicher, Morton, Boudreau, and Cheng discloses the method of claim 8, wherein changing the further 2D image data comprises: reducing the further 2D image data (Cheng, para. [0042], disclosing monitoring the network status of the video initiator, when the network status is good and the network delay is lower than a preset threshold, the resolution of the current picture can be increased to increase the clarity of the picture, when the network status is poor and the network delay is higher than a preset threshold, the resolution of the current picture can be lowered to ensure the smoothness of the picture, indicating lowering the resolution of the current picture as the further 2D image data can reduce the further 2D image data). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine the combination of Reicher, Morton, and Boudreau with Cheng. The suggestion/motivation would have been to ensure the smoothness of the picture, as suggested by Cheng (see Cheng, para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Reicher, Morton, Boudreau, and Cheng discloses the method of claim 8, wherein changing the further 2D image data comprises: augmenting the further 2D image data (Cheng, para. [0042], disclosing monitoring the network status of the video initiator, when the network status is good and the network delay is lower than a preset threshold, the resolution of the current picture can be increased to increase the clarity of the picture, indicating the current picture as the further 2D image data can be augmented by increasing the resolution). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine the combination of Reicher, Morton, and Boudreau with Cheng. The suggestion/motivation would have been to ensure the smoothness of the picture, as suggested by Cheng (see Cheng, para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Reicher, Morton, Boudreau, and Cheng discloses the method of claim 10, wherein augmenting the further 2D image data comprises increasing a resolution associated with the 2D image data (Cheng, para. [0042], disclosing monitoring the network status of the video initiator, when the network status is good and the network delay is lower than a preset threshold, the resolution of the current picture can be increased to increase the clarity of the picture, indicating the current picture as the further 2D image data can be augmented by increasing the resolution associated with the 2D image data). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine the combination of Reicher, Morton, and Boudreau with Cheng. The suggestion/motivation would have been to ensure the smoothness of the picture, as suggested by Cheng (see Cheng, para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Reicher, Morton, Boudreau, and Cheng discloses the method of claim 8, wherein an amount of changing the further 2D image data is at least partially based on a metric of the network connection (Cheng, para. [0042], disclosing monitoring the network status of the video initiator, when the network status is good and the network delay is lower than a preset threshold, the resolution of the current picture can be increased to increase the clarity of the picture, when the network status is poor and the network delay is higher than a preset threshold, the resolution of the current picture can be lowered to ensure the smoothness of the picture, indicating the amount of increasing or lowering the resolution of the image as the further 2D image data is at least partially based on the preset threshold of the network delay as a metric of the network connection). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine the combination of Reicher, Morton, and Boudreau with Cheng. The suggestion/motivation would have been to ensure the smoothness of the picture, as suggested by Cheng (see Cheng, para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 26, it recites similar limitations of claim 8 but in an apparatus form. The rationale of claim 8 rejection is applied to reject claim 26. In addition, Reicher discloses a processor and a memory (Reicher, para. [0012], disclosing the viewing devices/servers include one or more CPU, para. [0113], disclosing the viewing devices include one or more memory, para. [0139], disclosing the method can be performed by a device such as the PACS server or EMR system).
Regarding claim 27, it recites similar limitations of claim 9 but in an apparatus form. The rationale of claim 9 rejection is applied to reject claim 27. In addition, Reicher discloses a processor and a memory (Reicher, para. [0012], disclosing the viewing devices/servers include one or more CPU, para. [0113], disclosing the viewing devices include one or more memory, para. [0139], disclosing the method can be performed by a device such as the PACS server or EMR system).
Regarding claim 28, it recites similar limitations of claim 10 but in an apparatus form. The rationale of claim 10 rejection is applied to reject claim 28. In addition, Reicher discloses a processor and a memory (Reicher, para. [0012], disclosing the viewing devices/servers include one or more CPU, para. [0113], disclosing the viewing devices include one or more memory, para. [0139], disclosing the method can be performed by a device such as the PACS server or EMR system).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Reicher, Morton, and Cheng discloses the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the at least one memory to store instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, adapt the at least one processor to: increase a resolution associated with the 2D image data (Reicher, para. [0012], disclosing the viewing devices/servers include one or more CPU, para. [0113], disclosing the viewing devices include one or more memory, para. [0139], disclosing the method can be performed by a device such as the PACS server or EMR system, Cheng, para. [0042], disclosing monitoring the network status of the video initiator, when the network status is good and the network delay is lower than a preset threshold, the resolution of the current picture can be increased to increase the clarity of the picture, indicating the current picture as the further 2D image data can be augmented by increasing the resolution associated with the 2D image data). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Reicher in view of Morton with Cheng. The suggestion/motivation would have been to ensure the smoothness of the picture, as suggested by Cheng (see Cheng, para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 30, it recites similar limitations of claim 12 but in an apparatus form. The rationale of claim 12 rejection is applied to reject claim 30. In addition, Reicher discloses a processor and a memory (Reicher, para. [0012], disclosing the viewing devices/servers include one or more CPU, para. [0113], disclosing the viewing devices include one or more memory, para. [0139], disclosing the method can be performed by a device such as the PACS server or EMR system).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIXIA DU whose telephone number is (571)270-5646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at 571-272-7794. 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.
/HAIXIA DU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights