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
Claims 1-30 were previously pending in this application. The amendment filed 13 November 2025 has been entered and the following has occurred: Claims 1 & 16 have been amended. No Claims have been cancelled or added.
Claims 1-30 remain pending in the application
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 29 May 2025 and 13 November 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS’s are being considered by the Examiner in the current Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2, 4-10, 17, 19-24 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 claims 2, 4-5, 17, & 19-20, these claims recite “the determining… that the current study is in progress further comprises”. However, this limitation found in dependent claims 2, 4-5, 17, & 19-20 no longer has antecedent basis in independent claims 1 & 16 because the limitation “determining… that the collection of the current study at the image acquisition device is in progress…” that was previously found in claims 1 & 16 is effectively omitted/cancelled in the currently-filed amendments. As such, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recited limitation found in claims 2, 4-5, 17, & 19-20. As such, for Examination purposes, it will be interpreted by Examiner that this limitation is still included in independent claims 1 & 16 and amounts to patent-ineligible subject matter/is effectively met under 35 U.S.C. 103 for similar reasons provided in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claims 6-10 & 20-24, these claims are directly or indirectly dependent from claims 4 & 19, respectively, and therefore inherit the deficiencies of claims 4 & 19.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1-15), machine (claims 16-30) which recite steps of:
receiving, using a network device from a first image system in the plurality of medical image systems, an initial portion of a current study collected by an image acquisition device, the initial portion comprising first image series metadata, wherein the first image series metadata is collected at a first image series collection event by the image acquisition device, and wherein a transmission size of the first image series metadata is less than a transmission size of image data associated with the initial portion, and wherein the first image series metadata of the initial portion is separate from the image data associated with the initial portion;
receiving, using the network device, a second image series metadata corresponding to the current study, wherein the second image series metadata is received at a time subsequent to the first image series metadata and prior to completion of the current study;
determining, by a processor, a processing priority for the current study based on one or more metadata elements of the first and second image series metadata, the metadata elements comprising at least one of modality type, expected study duration, and patient status;
scheduling, by the processor, a clinical software application from the plurality of clinical software applications to process the current study based on the determined processing priority;
retrieving, using the network device, image data associated with the current study upon completion of the study acquisition;
processing, by the clinical software application, the image data associated with the current study to generate a processed study comprising clinical information; and
sending, by the network device, to the first image system, the processed study to the first image system contemporaneously with the current study acquisition.
These steps of receiving a plurality of medical imaging studies, metadata associated with said medical imaging studies, receiving a subsequent portion of the current study and metadata associated therewith, processing and generating a processed study comprising various image data and clinical information associated with a current study plurality of received studies, and sending said processed study, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the receiving a plurality of medical imaging studies and/or metadata language, receiving medical imaging studies and/or metadata in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user physically retrieving medical imaging studies whether it be physical imaging studies, or electronically-based imaging studies and metadata associated therewith, such as by a generic computer means or generic PACS system. For example, but for processing and generating a processed study comprising various image data and clinical information associated with a current study plurality of received studies in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user analyzing and reporting various image/clinical data associated with one or more received medical imaging studies. Similarly, the limitation of generating and processing the assembled study set such as to determine whether the current study is complete based on a metadata comparison generated by a computer and associated with multiple image series collection events, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as the user compiling the relevant imaging studies and the current imaging studies and processing the current imaging studies based on previously applied principles/clinical applications found in the relevant imaging studies but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2-15 & 17-30, reciting particular aspects of how determining the status of an imaging study, processing or reviewing an image study, or retrieving a plurality of imaging studies or matching imaging studies may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of a processing server, one or more computer/image/imaging systems, a memory, a network device, a processor communication with the memory and the network device, software application(s), amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see applicant’s specification [0041]/[0094] for a processing server, [0013] for one or more computer/image/imaging systems, [0041]/[0094] for a memory, [0025] for a network device, [0094] for processor in communication with the memory and the network device, [0111]-[0112] for software applications, respectively, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of receiving a current medical image study, receiving a second image series and metadata corresponding to a current study, retrieving a second image series metadata corresponding to the current study, associated therewith, retrieving image data associated with the current study upon completion of the study acquisition amounts to mere data gathering; recitation of generating an assembled study that comprises the current study and one or more subsequent portions and/or processing the assembled study, determining a processing priority based on metadata elements of the first and second image series metadata amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated; recitation of generating an assembled study or sending a processed study based on the assembled study set, scheduling a clinical software application to process the current study based on the processing priority, determining a processing priority, processing the image data to generate a processed study comprising clinical information amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g));
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as recitation of applying the abstract idea specifically to the processing of medical images, or a medical image system, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2-15 & 17-30, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, claims 2-7, 10-12, 14-15, 17-19, 22-26 & 29-30, which specifically disclose receiving a plurality of medical imaging series data, metadata, etc., pushing image series data, receiving status queries, receiving polling requests, receiving polling responses, receiving one or more relevancy matching rules, and/or receiving imaging series metadata such as a timestamp in particular, additional limitations which add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering, claims 4-5, 7-9, 17, & 19-21 which disclose determinations and/or configurations of the system parameters, such as polling interval, etc. based on received data, additional limitations which add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea by selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, claims 2-12, 14-15, 17-24 & 27-30, which recite varying embodiments of the abstract idea being applied to the processing or medical images or a medical image system, or a particular medical imaging device being used, additional limitations which generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as receiving a current medical image study, receiving a second image series and metadata corresponding to a current study, retrieving a second image series metadata corresponding to the current study, associated therewith, retrieving image data associated with the current study upon completion of the study acquisition, sending, by a network device, the processed study to the first image system contemporaneously with the current study acquisition, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); generating an assembled study that comprises the current study and one or more subsequent portions and/or processing the assembled study, determining a processing priority, scheduling a clinical software application to process the current study based on the processing priority, processing the image data to generate a processed study comprising clinical information and according to processing priority, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii); updating medical imaging records, metadata, clinical information, etc. in a database, memory, or storage based on processed/updated data by the clinical software or other human entity, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii); storing computerized instructions in memory to perform the abstract idea in a computer environment, storing medical image series metadata, storing medical image series files, storing updated medical imaging series files/records, storing assembled image series files/records, storing processed image series files/records, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2-15 & 17-30, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claims 2-7, 10-12, 14-15, 17-19, & 22-26, which specifically disclose receiving a plurality of medical imaging series data, metadata, etc., pushing image series data, receiving status queries, receiving polling requests, receiving polling responses, receiving one or more relevancy matching rules, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9-11, 14, 17, 19, & 21-23, which recite the system determining configurations, applying relevancy rules to match prior image series to the current image series data, selecting specific parameters based on calculated metrics, generating metadata comparisons between multiple image series etc. e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii); claims 2, 4-5, 7-9, 17, & 19-21, which recite keeping updated records or configurations of the system based on received data, updating a current study’s status such as not being current or in progress, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii); claims 2-12, 14-15, 17-26, which recite storing computerized instructions in memory to perform the abstract idea in a computer environment, storing medical image series metadata, storing medical image series files, storing relevancy rules, storing updated medical imaging series files/records, storing assembled image series files/records, storing processed image series files/records, generating and/or storing metadata comparisons between multiple image series, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 11-14, 16-18, & 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0287505), hereinafter “Wood”, in view of Kopylov et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0239867), hereinafter “Kopylov”, further in view of Bronkalla et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0259491), hereinafter “Bronkalla”.
Claim 1 –
Regarding Claim 1, Wood discloses a method for processing a plurality of medical images using a plurality of clinical applications, the method comprising:
receiving, using a network device from a first image system in the plurality of medical image systems, a first image series metadata corresponding to a current study collected by an image acquisition device (See Wood Par [0025]-[0034] & Fig. 1 which discloses the use of a network interface unit or network components for purposes of transmitting varying clinical files/hospital data; See Wood Par [0018]-[0022] which discloses a system for finding services based on attribute information contained in meta-tags, i.e. metadata, such as a software application that has been tagged as being useful for the modality of analyzing MRI images of the knee when the clinician is viewing a knee MRI study, for instance via network or server implementation as described in Wood Par [0032] & [0072], respectively),
the initial portion comprising first image series metadata (See Wood Par [0019]-[0020] which specifically discloses the system extracting and parsing study metadata of any format, but typically stored in a DICOM image header or in HL7 format for an associated study; See Wood Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses a metadata management unit that can extract data from the service software to aid in linking the patient study with the most appropriate service to be used for analyzing said study, for example the management unit can extract information regarding the modality, study type, indication, and/or expected result which the particular service is appropriate for handling), wherein
the first image series metadata is collected at a first image series collection event by the image acquisition device (See Wood Par [0019]-[0020] which specifically discloses the system extracting and parsing study metadata of any format, but typically stored in a DICOM image header or in HL7 format for an associated study; See Wood Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses a metadata management unit that can extract data from the service software to aid in linking the patient study with the most appropriate service to be used for analyzing said study, for example the management unit can extract information regarding the modality, study type, indication, and/or expected result which the particular service is appropriate for handling), and wherein
the first image series metadata of the initial portion is separate from the image (See Wood Par [0019] which discloses metadata being in any format, but will typically be stored in a DICOM image header, e.g. header file, which is separate from the image file, or in the hospital’s information system in HL7 format);
receiving, using the network device, a second image series metadata corresponding to the current study, wherein the second image series metadata is received at a time subsequent to the first image series metadata and prior to completion of the current study (See Wood Par [0019]-[0020] which specifically discloses the system extracting and parsing study metadata of any format, but typically stored in a DICOM image header or in HL7 format for an associated study; See Wood Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses a metadata management unit that can extract data from the service software to aid in linking the patient study with the most appropriate service to be used for analyzing said study, for example the management unit can extract information regarding the modality, study type, indication, and/or expected result which the particular service is appropriate for handling; See Wood Par [0034] & [0051] which discloses one or more patient studies existing and/or being available, such as particularly described in Wood Par [0034], a CT scan with associated CT scan results and PET scan with associated PET scan results, i.e. multiple image series occurring at different times, and possibly overlaying said results, pointing towards a first and second image series collection event, i.e. CT scan and PET scan);
determining, by a processor, a processing priority for the current study based on one or more metadata elements of the first and second image series metadata, the metadata elements comprising at least one of modality type, expected study duration, and patient status (See Wood Par [0036] which discloses the metadata management unit extracting information regarding the modality, study type, etc., thereby reading on “at least one of” modality type, expected study duration, and patient status, albeit not explicitly recited for use in determining a processing priority, which is instead disclosed by Bronkalla below);
retrieving, using the network device, image data associated with the current study upon completion of the study acquisition (See Wood Par [0028] which discloses the system or workstation at which a practitioner can analyze the patient data available from the hospital information system tools, such that the tools can be used for displaying and/or post-processing image data, i.e. retrieving said image data upon completion of study acquisition);
processing, by the clinical software application, the image data associated with the current study to generate a processed study comprising clinical information (See Wood Par [0076] which discloses the combining of the plurality of existing patient studies that have been matched via the criteria or patient information matching, such as a CT scan in combination with a PET scan, to generate new patient data to be processed by the practitioner or radiologist, and once such information is generated, it can automatically be stored and retrieved via the system as a new patient study and can accordingly be available for other practitioners to access and use for processing purposes); and
sending, by the network device, the processed study to the first image system contemporaneously with the current study acquisition (See Wood Par [0025]-[0034] & Fig. 1 which discloses the use of a network interface unit or network components for purposes of transmitting varying clinical files/hospital data that have been processed, upon processing being completed; See Wood Par [0076] which discloses the combining of the plurality of existing patient studies that have been matched via the criteria or patient information matching, such as a CT scan in combination with a PET scan, to generate new patient data to be processed by the practitioner or radiologist, and once such information is generated, it can automatically be stored and retrieved via the system as a new patient study and can accordingly be available for other practitioners to access and use for processing purposes).
While it is generally understood by Examiner that the size of a metadata file or object is typically smaller than the size of the file itself, Wood does not explicitly disclose this aspect, or the following limitations, in particular:
a transmission size of the first image series metadata is less than a transmission size of image data associated with the initial portion;
a transmission size of the second image series metadata is less than a transmission size of image data associated with the subsequent portion.
Therefore, Kopylov discloses a transmission size of the first image series metadata is less than a transmission size of image data associated with the initial portion and a transmission size of the second image series metadata is less than a transmission size of image data associated with the subsequent portion (See Kopylov Par [0078] which discloses generating at least one set of pixel metadata objects that correspond to one or more of medical image sets; See Kopylov Par [0176]-[0178] which discloses generating representative objects of images, such that the representative objects have reduced or limited size when compared to the images that the generated objects represent, and further specifically discloses generation of representative metadata objects, such as pixel metadata objects). The disclosure of Kopylov is directly applicable to the disclosure of Wood because both disclosures share limitations and capabilities, such as being directed towards management of medical images and medical images systems, such as PACS systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Wood, which already discloses the extracting and parsing of study metadata for medical imaging data studies to further specify a transmission size of the first image series metadata is less than a transmission size of image data associated with the initial portion and a transmission size of the second image series metadata is less than a transmission size of image data associated with the subsequent portion, as disclosed by Kopylov, because generation of metadata file objects can replace larger actual medical images and thereby facilitate data management by removing large medical image data items from the storage (See Kopylov Par [0177]-[0178]).
Wood and Kopylov do not disclose determining a processing priority for the images being determined, such as based on metadata elements, as found in the limitations below:
determining, by a processor, a processing priority for the current study based on one or more metadata elements of the first and second image series metadata, the metadata elements comprising at least one of modality type, expected study duration, and patient status;
scheduling, by the processor, a clinical software application from the plurality of clinical software applications to process the current study based on the determined processing priority.
However, Bronkalla discloses determining, by a processor, a processing priority for the current study based on one or more metadata elements of the first and second image series metadata, the metadata elements comprising at least one of modality type, expected study duration, and patient status (See Bronkalla Par [0033] which discloses various images or files in a PACS database being processed, such that priority rules can be applied to determine how to process data from the archive database, such that some file data processing may be needed sooner than data processing associated with other types, e.g. modality types, such that it is understood that based on metadata labels, e.g. modality type and/or the type of data being processed directly influences or determines said priority); scheduling, by the processor, a clinical software application from the plurality of clinical software applications to process the current study based on the determined processing priority (See Bronkalla Par [0033] which discloses various images or files in a PACS database being processed according to a priority, i.e. scheduled, such that priority rules can be applied to determine how to process data from the archive database, such that some file data processing may be needed sooner than data processing associated with other types, e.g. modality types, such that it is understood that based on metadata labels, e.g. modality type and/or the type of data being processed directly influences or determines said priority). The disclosure of Bronkalla is directly applicable to the combined disclosure of Wood and Kopylov, because the disclosures share limitations and capabilities, such as being directed towards processing of varying data in a database, including imaging data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Wood and Kopylov, which already discloses processing of one or more imaging data files/batches to further include a processing priority for said processing action, as disclosed by Bronkalla, because some file data processing may be needed sooner than data processing associated with other types, such that this reduces or entirely avoids a delay in the data retrieval performed for users (See Bronkalla Par [0033]).
Claim 2 –
Regarding Claim 2, Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla disclose the method of Claim 1 in its entirety. Wood further discloses a method, wherein:
the determining, at the processor that the current study is in progress (See Wood Par [0025] which discloses the use of a special-purpose computer or data processor that is specifically programmed. configured or constructed to perform the instructions or methods disclosed throughout Wood) further comprises:
receiving, one or more additional series metadata corresponding to the current study (See Wood Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses a metadata management unit that can extract data/metadata from the service software to aid in linking the patient study with the most appropriate service to be used for analyzing said study, for example the management unit can extract information regarding the modality, study type, indication, and/or expected result which the particular service is appropriate for handling);
determining, based on a count of the one or more additional series metadata corresponding to the current study, that the current study is in progress (See Wood Par [0033] which discloses the worklist management unit adding the existence of a new study to the worklist from which a radiologist or practitioner works and as the radiologist completes the associated analysis tasks, the worklist can indicate that the analysis task(s) have been completed, therefore constituting a study that is in progress; Further, see Wood [0049] & [0053] which disclose the appropriate worklist information being generated or retrieved such as the particular study being conducted, the modality, the patient indication, and determining whether the worklist are displayed and/or updated; further, the system determines or tracks if the practitioner has finished analyzing a particular study, and once completed, that study can be removed from the worklist, indicating that the analysis task or tasks have been completed and therefore would constitute a study that is not in progress).
Claim 3 –
Regarding Claim 3, Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla disclose the method of Claim 1 in its entirety. Wood further discloses a method, wherein:
the first image series metadata is pushed to the network device from at least one of the group of a PACS server, a Modality Worklist, and a medical image device (Under broadest reasonable interpretation and because this Claim is written in the alternative form “at least one of”, only one of the listed elements has to be disclosed; Further, Examiner interprets “pushed” and “pushes” as sending, transmitting, uploading, etc. to a server from at least one of the group set forth in the Claim; therefore, see Wood Par [0025]-[0034] & Fig. 1 which discloses the use of a network interface unit or network components for purposes of transmitting varying clinical files/hospital data; see Wood Par [0019]-[0020] which specifically discloses the system extracting and parsing study metadata of any format, but typically stored in a DICOM image header or in HL7 format; See Wood Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses a metadata management unit that can extract data from the service software to aid in linking the patient study with the most appropriate service to be used for analyzing said study, for example the management unit can extract information regarding the modality, study type, indication, and/or expected result which the particular service is appropriate for handling; Further, see Wood [0049], [0053], & Fig. 1 which disclose the appropriate worklist information being generated or retrieved on the radiologist’s or practitioner’s workstation via server implementation such as the particular study being conducted, the modality, the patient indication, and determining whether the worklist are displayed and/or updated; While Wood does not necessarily disclose a PACS server, this Claim is written in the alternative form “at least one of”, only one of the listed elements has to be disclosed); and
wherein the at least one of the group of the PACS server, the Modality Worklist, and the medical image device pushes the second image series metadata (See Wood Par [0019]-[0020] which specifically discloses the system extracting and parsing study metadata of any format, but typically stored in a DICOM image header or in HL7 format for an associated study; See Wood Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses a metadata management unit that can extract data from the service software to aid in linking the patient study with the most appropriate service to be used for analyzing said study, for example the management unit can extract information regarding the modality, study type, indication, and/or expected result which the particular service is appropriate for handling; See Wood Par [0034] & [0051] which discloses one or more patient studies existing and/or being available, such as particularly described in Wood Par [0034], a CT scan with associated CT scan results and PET scan with associated PET scan results, and possibly overlaying said results, pointing towards a first and second image series collection event, i.e. CT scan and PET scan; See Wood Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses a metadata management unit that can extract data from the service software to aid in linking the patient study with the most appropriate service to be used for analyzing said study, for example the management unit can extract information regarding the modality, study type, indication, and/or expected result which the particular service is appropriate for handling; While not “pushes” per se, see Wood [0049], [0053], & Fig. 1 which disclose the appropriate worklist information being generated or retrieved on the radiologist’s or practitioner’s remote workstation via server implementation such as the particular study being conducted, the modality, the patient indication, and determining whether the worklist are displayed and/or updated; See Wood Par [0053]-[0054] and Fig. 4 which disclose if new data is available, the system can include metadata processing operations, for example, combining data from different imaging modalities, different studies).
Claim 11 –
Regarding Claim 11, Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla disclose the method of Claim 1 in its entirety. Wood further discloses a method, wherein:
the first image series metadata corresponds to a first series of medical images collected by the first image system (See Wood Par [0076] which discloses the combining of the plurality of existing patient studies that have been matched via the criteria or patient information matching, such as a CT scan in combination with a PET scan, to generate new patient data to be processed by the practitioner or radiologist, and once such information is generated, it can automatically be stored and retrieved via the system as a new patient study and can accordingly be available for other practitioners to access and use for processing purposes; See Wood Par [0053]-[0054] and Fig. 4 which disclose if new data is available, the system can including metadata processing operations, for example, combining data from different imaging modalities, different studies; See Wood Par [0032] & [0049] which disclose the system receiving medical studies or medical study information for a particular patient or based on a certain metadata criteria and further describes a network interface unit that facilitates the exchange of information via the hospital network such as via server in Par [0072] and is related to a particular patient or categorized based on other criteria, such as a corresponding plurality of studies being matched in lack of any definition of matching criteria);
the second image series metadata corresponds to a second series of medical images collected by the first image system (See Wood Par [0019]-[0020] which specifically discloses the system extracting and parsing study metadata of any format, but typically stored in a DICOM image header or in HL7 format for an associated study; See Wood Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses a metadata management unit that can extract data from the service software to aid in linking the patient study with the most appropriate service to be used for analyzing said study, for example the management unit can extract information regarding the modality, study type, indication, and/or expected result which the particular service is appropriate for handling; See Wood Par [0034] & [0051] which discloses one or more patient studies existing and/or being available, such as particularly described in Wood Par [0034], a CT scan with associated CT scan results and PET scan with associated PET scan results, and possibly overlaying said results, pointing towards a first and second image series collection event, i.e. CT scan and PET scan; See Wood Par [0053]-[0054] and Fig. 4 which disclose if new data is available, the system can including metadata processing operations, for example, combining data from different imaging modalities, different studies; See Wood Par [0032] & [0049] which disclose the system receiving medical studies or medical study information for a particular patient or based on a certain metadata criteria and further describes a network interface unit that facilitates the exchange of information via the hospital network such as via server in Par [0072] and is related to a particular patient or categorized based on other criteria, such as a corresponding plurality of studies being matched in lack of any definition of matching criteria); and
the second image series metadata is collected by the first image system after the first image series metadata is received at the network device (See Wood Par [0025]-[0034] & Fig. 1 which discloses the use of a network interface unit or network components for purposes of transmitting varying clinical files/hospital data; See Wood Par [0053]-[0054] and Fig. 4 which disclose if new data is available, the system can including metadata processing operations, for example, combining data from different imaging modalities, different studies; See Wood Par [0032] & [0049] which disclose the system receiving medical studies or medical study information for a particular patient or based on a certain metadata criteria and further describes a network interface unit that facilitates the exchange of information via the hospital network such as via server in Par [0072] and is related to a particular patient or categorized based on other criteria, such as a corresponding plurality of studies being matched in lack of any definition of matching criteria).
Claim 12 –
Regarding Claim 12, Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla disclose the method of Claim 1 in its entirety. Wood further discloses a method, wherein:
receiving, at the network device from the first image system in the plurality of medical image systems, third image series metadata corresponding to the matched current study (See Wood Par [0025]-[0034] & Fig. 1 which discloses the use of a network interface unit or network components for purposes of transmitting varying clinical files/hospital data; See Wood Par [0053]-[0054] and Fig. 4 which disclose if new data is available, the system can including metadata processing operations, for example, combining data from different imaging modalities, different studies; See Wood Par [0032] & [0049] which disclose the system receiving medical studies or medical study information for a particular patient or based on a certain metadata criteria and further describes a network interface unit that facilitates the exchange of information via the hospital network such as via server in Wood Par [0072] and is related to a particular patient or categorized based on other criteria, such as a corresponding plurality of studies being matched in lack of any definition of matching criteria).
Claim 13 –
Regarding Claim 13, Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla disclose the method of Claim 1 in its entirety. Wood further discloses a method, wherein:
receiving, at the network device of the processing server from at least one medical image systems of the plurality of medical image systems, one or more matched prior studies (See Wood Par [0025]-[0034] & Fig. 1 which discloses the use of a network interface unit or network components for purposes of transmitting varying clinical files/hospital data; See Wood Par [0025] which discloses the use of a special-purpose computer or data processor that is specifically programmed. configured or constructed to perform the instructions or methods disclosed throughout Wood; See Wood Par [0051]-[0054] and Fig. 4 which disclose the system including metadata processing operations, for example, combining data from different imaging modalities and/or different imaging studies that are determined by the system to be matches based on certain relevancy criteria further described in Par [0036]; See Wood Par [0032] & [0049] which disclose the system receiving medical studies or medical study information for a particular patient or based on a certain metadata criteria and further describes a network interface unit that facilitates the exchange of information via the hospital network such as via server in Par [0072] and is related to a particular patient or categorized based on other criteria, such as a corresponding plurality of studies being matched in lack of any definition of matching criteria); wherein
the retrieving, using the network device of the processing server, further comprises retrieving image data corresponding to the one or more matched prior studies (See Wood Par [0025]-[0034] & Fig. 1 which discloses the use of a network interface unit or network components for purposes of transmitting varying clinical files/hospital data; See Wood Par [0025] which discloses the use of a special-purpose computer or data processor that is specifically programmed. configured or constructed to perform the instructions or methods disclosed throughout Wood; See Wood Par [0051]-[0054] and Fig. 4 which disclose the system including metadata processing operations, for example, combining data from different imaging modalities and/or different imaging studies that are determined by the system to be matches based on certain relevancy criteria further described in Par [0036]; See Wood Par [0032] & [0049] which disclose the system receiving medical studies or medical study information for a particular patient or based on a certain metadata criteria and further describes a network interface unit that facilitates the exchange of information via the hospital network such as via server in Par [0072] and is related to a particular patient or categorized based on other criteria, such as a corresponding plurality of studies being matched in lack of any definition of matching criteria); and
wherein the assembled study set further comprises the one or more matched prior studies and the image data corresponding to the one or more matched prior studies (See Wood Par [0051]-[0054] and Fig. 4 which disclose the system including metadata processing operations, for example, combining data from different imaging modalities and/or different imaging studies that are determined by the system to be matches based on certain relevancy criteria further described in Par [0036]; See Wood Par [0032] & [0049] which disclose the system receiving medical studies or medical study information for a particular patient or based on a certain metadata criteria and further describes a network interface unit that facilitates the exchange of information via the hospital network such as via server in Par [0072] and is related to a particular patient or categorized based on other criteria, such as a corresponding plurality of studies being matched in lack of any definition of matching criteria).
Claim 14 –
Regarding Claim 14, Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla disclose the method of Claim 1 in its entirety. Wood further discloses a method, wherein:
the image data corresponding to the matched current study comprises at least one selected from the group of: X-ray Plain Film (PF) data, digital X-ray data, cardiology imaging device data, Computed Tomography (CT) data, ultrasound image data, nuclear medicine imaging data including Positron-Emission Tomography (PET) data, Veterinary imaging device data, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) data, and mammographic image data (See Wood Par [0033]-[0036] which discloses the use of CT or computer tomography scan, PET scan, and/or MRI scan, as examples for a particular imaging study type which is understood to read on the Claim of choosing one of the matched current study comprising at least one of the alternatives listed above).
Claim 16 –
Regarding Claim 16, Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla disclose a computer-implemented system for processing a plurality of medical images using a plurality of clinical software applications, the system comprising:
a processing server (See Wood Par [0025] which discloses the use of a special-purpose computer or data processor that is specifically programmed. configured or constructed to perform the instructions or methods disclosed throughout Wood), the processing server comprising:
a memory (See Wood Par [0026]);
a network device (See Wood Par [0026]-[0028] and Fig.1 which disclose the use of one or more network devices/computers for purposes of network communication); and
a processor in communication with the memory and the network device (See Wood Par [0025] which discloses a processor that is specifically programmed, configured, or constructed to perform one of the computer-executable instructions that is described throughout Wood), the processor configured to:
receive, at the network device from a first image system in the plurality of medical image systems, a first image series metadata corresponding to a current study, the current study collected by an image acquisition device (See Wood Par [0025]-[0034] & Fig. 1 which discloses the use of a network interface unit or network components for purposes of transmitting varying clinical files/hospital data; See Wood Par [0018]-[0022] which discloses a system for finding services based on attribute information contained in meta-tags, i.e. metadata, such as a software application that has been tagged as being useful for the modality of analyzing MRI images of the knee when the clinician is viewing a knee MRI study, for instance via network or server implementation as described in Wood Par [0032] & [0072], respectively)
wherein
the first image series metadata is collected at an initial image series collection event by the image acquisition device (See Wood Par [0019]-[0020] which specifically discloses the system extracting and parsing study metadata of any format, but typically stored in a DICOM image header or in HL7 format for an associated study; See Wood Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses a metadata management unit that can extract data from the service software to aid in linking the patient study with the most appropriate service to be used for analyzing said study, for example the management unit can extract information regarding the modality, study type, indication, and/or expected result which the particular service is appropriate for handling); and wherein
the first image series metadata of the initial portion is separate from the image data (See Wood Par [0019] which discloses metadata being in any format, but will typically be stored in a DICOM image header, e.g. header file, or in the hospital’s information system in HL7 format);
receive, by the network device, a second image series metadata corresponding to the current study, wherein the second image series metadata is received at a time subsequent to the first image series metadata and prior to completion of the current study (See Wood Par [0019]-[0020] which specifically discloses the system extracting and parsing study metadata of any format, but typically stored in a DICOM image header or in HL7 format for an associated study; See Wood Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses a metadata management unit that can extract data from the service software to aid in linking the patient study with the most appropriate service to be used for analyzing said study, for example the management unit can extract information regarding the modality, study type, indication, and/or expected result which the particular service is appropriate for handling; See Wood Par [0034] & [0051] which discloses one or more patient studies existing and/or being available, such as particularly described in Wood Par [0034], a CT scan with associated CT scan results and PET scan with associated PET scan results, i.e. multiple image series occurring at different times, and possibly overlaying said results, pointing towards a first and second image series collection event, i.e. CT scan and PET scan);
determine, by a processor, a processing priority for the current study based on one or more metadata elements of the first and second image series metadata, the metadata elements comprising at least one of modality type, expected study duration, and patient status (See Wood Par [0036] which discloses the metadata management unit extracting information regarding the modality, study type, etc., thereby reading on “at least one of” modality type, expected study duration, and patient status, albeit not explicitly recited for use in determining a processing priority, which is instead disclosed by Bronkalla below);
retrieve, using the network device, image data associated with the current study upon completion of the study acquisition (See Wood Par [0028] which discloses the system or workstation at which a practitioner can analyze the patient data available from the hospital information system tools, such that the tools can be used for displaying and/or post-processing image data, i.e. retrieving said image data upon completion of study acquisition);
process, by the clinical software application, the image data associated with the current study to generate a processed study comprising clinical information (See Wood Par [0076] which discloses the combining of the plurality of existing patient studies that have been matched via the criteria or patient information matching, such as a CT scan in combination with a PET scan, to generate new patient data to be processed by the practitioner or radiologist, and once such information is generated, it can automatically be stored and retrieved via the system as a new patient study and can accordingly be available for other practitioners to access and use for processing purposes); and
send, from the network device to the first image system, the processed study contemporaneously with completion of the current study acquisition (See Wood Par [0025]-[0034] & Fig. 1 which discloses the use of a network interface unit or network components for purposes of transmitting varying clinical files/hospital data that have been processed, upon processing being completed; See Wood Par [0076] which discloses the combining of the plurality of existing patient studies that have been matched via the criteria or patient information matching, such as a CT scan in combination with a PET scan, to generate new patient data to be processed by the practitioner or radiologist, and once such information is generated, it can automatically be stored and retrieved via the system as a new patient study and can accordingly be available for other practitioners to access and use for processing purposes).
While it is generally understood by Examiner that the size of a metadata file or object is typically smaller than the size of the file itself, Wood does not explicitly disclose this aspect, or the following limitations, in particular:
a transmission size of the first image series metadata is less than a transmission size of image data associated with the initial portion;
a transmission size of the second image series metadata is less than a transmission size of image data associated with the subsequent portion.
Therefore, Kopylov discloses a transmission size of the first image series metadata is less than a transmission size of image data associated with the initial portion and a transmission size of the second image series metadata is less than a transmission size of image data associated with the subsequent portion (See Kopylov Par [0078] which discloses generating at least one set of pixel metadata objects that correspond to one or more of medical image sets; See Kopylov Par [0176]-[0178] which discloses generating representative objects of images, such that the representative objects have reduced or limited size when compared to the images that the generated objects represent, and further specifically discloses generation of representative metadata objects, such as pixel metadata objects). The disclosure of Kopylov is directly applicable to the disclosure of Wood because both disclosures share limitations and capabilities, such as being directed towards management of medical images and medical images systems, such as PACS systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Wood, which already discloses the extracting and parsing of study metadata for medical imaging data studies to further specify a transmission size of the first image series metadata is less than a transmission size of image data associated with the initial portion and a transmission size of the second image series metadata is less than a transmission size of image data associated with the subsequent portion, as disclosed by Kopylov, because generation of metadata file objects can replace larger actual medical images and thereby facilitate data management by removing large medical image data items from the storage (See Kopylov Par [0177]-[0178]).
Wood and Kopylov do not disclose determining a processing priority for the images being determined, such as based on metadata elements, as found in the limitations below:
determining, by a processor, a processing priority for the current study based on one or more metadata elements of the first and second image series metadata, the metadata elements comprising at least one of modality type, expected study duration, and patient status;
scheduling, by the processor, a clinical software application from the plurality of clinical software applications to process the current study based on the determined processing priority.
However, Bronkalla discloses determining, by a processor, a processing priority for the current study based on one or more metadata elements of the first and second image series metadata, the metadata elements comprising at least one of modality type, expected study duration, and patient status (See Bronkalla Par [0033] which discloses various images or files in a PACS database being processed, such that priority rules can be applied to determine how to process data from the archive database, such that some file data processing may be needed sooner than data processing associated with other types, e.g. modality types, such that it is understood that based on metadata labels, e.g. modality type and/or the type of data being processed directly influences or determines said priority); scheduling, by the processor, a clinical software application from the plurality of clinical software applications to process the current study based on the determined processing priority (See Bronkalla Par [0033] which discloses various images or files in a PACS database being processed according to a priority, i.e. scheduled, such that priority rules can be applied to determine how to process data from the archive database, such that some file data processing may be needed sooner than data processing associated with other types, e.g. modality types, such that it is understood that based on metadata labels, e.g. modality type and/or the type of data being processed directly influences or determines said priority).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Wood and Kopylov, which already discloses processing of one or more imaging data files/batches to further include a processing priority for said processing action, as disclosed by Bronkalla, because some file data processing may be needed sooner than data processing associated with other types, such that this reduces or entirely avoids a delay in the data retrieval performed for users (See Bronkalla Par [0033]).
Claim 17 –
Regarding Claim 17, Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla disclose the system of Claim 16 in its entirety. Wood further discloses a system, wherein:
the processor is further configured to:
receive, one or more additional series metadata corresponding to the current study (See Wood Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses a metadata management unit that can extract data/metadata from the service software to aid in linking the patient study with the most appropriate service to be used for analyzing said study, for example the management unit can extract information regarding the modality, study type, indication, and/or expected result which the particular service is appropriate for handling);
determine, based on a count of the one or more additional series metadata corresponding to the current study, that the current study is in progress (See Wood Par [0033] which discloses the worklist management unit adding the existence of a new study to the worklist from which a radiologist or practitioner works and as the radiologist completes the associated analysis tasks, the worklist can indicate that the analysis task(s) have been completed, therefore constituting a study that is in progress; Further, see Wood [0049] & [0053] which disclose the appropriate worklist information being generated or retrieved such as the particular study being conducted, the modality, the patient indication, and determining whether the worklist are displayed and/or updated; further, the system determines or tracks if the practitioner has finished analyzing a particular study, and once completed, that study can be removed from the worklist, indicating that the analysis task or tasks have been completed and therefore would constitute a study that is not in progress).
Claim 18 –
Regarding Claim 18, Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla disclose the system of Claim 16 in its entirety. Wood further discloses a system, wherein:
the first image series metadata is pushed to the first processing server from at least one of the group of a PACS server, a Modality Worklist, and a medical image device (Under broadest reasonable interpretation and because this Claim is written in the alternative form “at least one of”, only one of the listed elements has to be disclosed; Further, Examiner interprets “pushed” and “pushes” as sending, transmitting, uploading, etc. to a server from at least one of the group set forth in the Claim; therefore, see Wood Par [0025] which discloses the use of a special-purpose computer or data processor that is specifically programmed. configured or constructed to perform the instructions or methods disclosed throughout Wood; See Wood Par [0019]-[0020] which specifically discloses the system extracting and parsing study metadata of any format, but typically stored in a DICOM image header or in HL7 format; See Wood Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses a metadata management unit that can extract data from the service software to aid in linking the patient study with the most appropriate service to be used for analyzing said study, for example the management unit can extract information regarding the modality, study type, indication, and/or expected result which the particular service is appropriate for handling; Further, see Wood [0049], [0053], & Fig. 1 which disclose the appropriate worklist information being generated or retrieved on the radiologist’s or practitioner’s workstation via server implementation such as the particular study being conducted, the modality, the patient indication, and determining whether the worklist are displayed and/or updated; While Wood does not necessarily disclose a PACS server, this Claim is written in the alternative form “at least one of”, only one of the listed elements has to be disclosed; However, for disclosures that may read on the use of a PACS server, see Hayter Par [0066]-[0069]; also, see Rothschild Par [0085] for specific discussion of using “push technology” for pushing the image or other data to the last known IP address of the specified remote location if the disclosure of Wood is not explicit enough on “pushing”); and
wherein the at least one of the group of the PACS server, the Modality Worklist, and the medical image device pushes the second image series metadata (See Wood Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses a metadata management unit that can extract data from the service software to aid in linking the patient study with the most appropriate service to be used for analyzing said study, for example the management unit can extract information regarding the modality, study type, indication, and/or expected result which the particular service is appropriate for handling; While not “pushes” per se, see Wood [0049], [0053], & Fig. 1 which disclose the appropriate worklist information being generated or retrieved on the radiologist’s or practitioner’s remote workstation via server implementation such as the particular study being conducted, the modality, the patient indication, and determining whether the worklist are displayed and/or updated; See Wood Par [0053]-[0054] and Fig. 4 which disclose if new data is available, the system can include metadata processing operations, for example, combining data from different imaging modalities, different studies; see Rothschild Par [0085] for specific discussion of using “push technology” for pushing the image or other data to the last known IP address of the specified remote location if the disclosure of Wood is not explicit enough on “pushing”).
Claim 25 –
Regarding Claim 25, Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla disclose the system of Claim 16 in its entirety. Wood further discloses a system, wherein:
the processor is further configured to (See Wood Par [0025] which discloses a processor that is specifically programmed, configured, or constructed to perform one of the computer-executable instructions that is described throughout Wood):
determine that the matched current study is complete by:
receiving, at the processing server, the second image series metadata (See Wood Par [0025] which discloses the use of a special-purpose computer or data processor that is specifically programmed. configured or constructed to perform the instructions or methods disclosed throughout Wood; See Wood Par [0076] which discloses the combining of the plurality of existing patient studies that have been matched via the criteria or patient information matching, such as a CT scan in combination with a PET scan, to generate new patient data to be processed by the practitioner or radiologist, and once such information is generated, it can automatically be stored and retrieved via the system as a new patient study and can accordingly be available for other practitioners to access and use for processing purposes); and
applying, at the processing server, one or more relevancy matching rules to the second image series metadata (See Wood Par [0025] which discloses the use of a special-purpose computer or data processor that is specifically programmed. configured or constructed to perform the instructions or methods disclosed throughout Wood; See Wood Par [0076] which discloses the combining of the plurality of existing patient studies that have been matched via the criteria or patient information matching, such as a CT scan in combination with a PET scan, to generate new patient data to be processed by the practitioner or radiologist, and once such information is generated, it can automatically be stored and retrieved via the system as a new patient study and can accordingly be available for other practitioners to access and use for processing purposes).
Claim 26 –
Regarding Claim 26, Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla disclose the system of Claim 16 in its entirety. Wood further discloses a system, wherein:
the first image series metadata corresponds to a first series of medical images collected by the first image system (See Wood Par [0076] which discloses the combining of the plurality of existing patient studies that have been matched via the criteria or patient information matching, such as a CT scan in combination with a PET scan, to generate new patient data to be processed by the practitioner or radiologist, and once such information is generated, it can automatically be stored and retrieved via the system as a new patient study and can accordingly be available for other practitioners to access and use for processing purposes; See Wood Par [0053]-[0054] and Fig. 4 which disclose if new data is available, the system can including metadata processing operations, for example, combining data from different imaging modalities, different studies; See Wood Par [0032] & [0049] which disclose the system receiving medical studies or medical study information for a particular patient or based on a certain metadata criteria and further describes a network interface unit that facilitates the exchange of information via the hospital network such as via server in Par [0072] and is related to a particular patient or categorized based on other criteria, such as a corresponding plurality of studies being matched in lack of any definition of matching criteria);
the second image series metadata corresponds to a second series of medical images collected by first image system (See Wood Par [0053]-[0054] and Fig. 4 which disclose if new data is available, the system can including metadata processing operations, for example, combining data from different imaging modalities, different studies; See Wood Par [0032] & [0049] which disclose the system receiving medical studies or medical study information for a particular patient or based on a certain metadata criteria and further describes a network interface unit that facilitates the exchange of information via the hospital network such as via server in Par [0072] and is related to a particular patient or categorized based on other criteria, such as a corresponding plurality of studies being matched in lack of any definition of matching criteria); and
the second image series metadata is collected by the first image system after the first image series metadata is received at the processing server (See Wood Par [0025] which discloses the use of a special-purpose computer or data processor that is specifically programmed. configured or constructed to perform the instructions or methods disclosed throughout Wood; See Wood Par [0053]-[0054] and Fig. 4 which disclose if new data is available, the system can including metadata processing operations, for example, combining data from different imaging modalities, different studies; See Wood Par [0032] & [0049] which disclose the system receiving medical studies or medical study information for a particular patient or based on a certain metadata criteria and further describes a network interface unit that facilitates the exchange of information via the hospital network such as via server in Par [0072] and is related to a particular patient or categorized based on other criteria, such as a corresponding plurality of studies being matched in lack of any definition of matching criteria).
Claim 27 –
Regarding Claim 27, Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla disclose the system of Claim 13 in its entirety. Wood further discloses a system, wherein:
the processor is further configured to (See Wood Par [0025] which discloses a processor that is specifically programmed, configured, or constructed to perform one of the computer-executable instructions that is described throughout Wood):
receive, at the network device from the first image system in the plurality of medical image systems, third image series metadata corresponding to the matched current study (See Wood Par [0053]-[0054] and Fig. 4 which disclose if new data is available, the system can including metadata processing operations, for example, combining data from different imaging modalities, different studies; See Wood Par [0032] & [0049] which disclose the system receiving medical studies or medical study information for a particular patient or based on a certain metadata criteria and further describes a network interface unit that facilitates the exchange of information via the hospital network such as via server in Par [0072] and is related to a particular patient or categorized based on other criteria, such as a corresponding plurality of studies being matched in lack of any definition of matching criteria).
Claim 28 –
Regarding Claim 28, Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla disclose the method of Claim 16 in its entirety. Wood further discloses a method, further comprising:
receiving, at the network device of the processing server from at least one medical image systems of the plurality of medical image systems, one or more matched prior studies (See Wood Par [0025]-[0034] & Fig. 1 which discloses the use of a network interface unit or network components for purposes of transmitting varying clinical files/hospital data; See Wood Par [0025] which discloses the use of a special-purpose computer or data processor that is specifically programmed. configured or constructed to perform the instructions or methods disclosed throughout Wood; See Wood Par [0051]-[0054] and Fig. 4 which disclose the system including metadata processing operations, for example, combining data from different imaging modalities and/or different imaging studies that are determined by the system to be matches based on certain relevancy criteria further described in Par [0036]; See Wood Par [0032] & [0049] which disclose the system receiving medical studies or medical study information for a particular patient or based on a certain metadata criteria and further describes a network interface unit that facilitates the exchange of information via the hospital network such as via server in Par [0072] and is related to a particular patient or categorized based on other criteria, such as a corresponding plurality of studies being matched in lack of any definition of matching criteria);
wherein the retrieving, using the network device of the processing server, further comprises retrieving image data corresponding to the one or more matched prior studies (See Wood Par [0025]-[0034] & Fig. 1 which discloses the use of a network interface unit or network components for purposes of transmitting varying clinical files/hospital data; See Wood Par [0025] which discloses the use of a special-purpose computer or data processor that is specifically programmed. configured or constructed to perform the instructions or methods disclosed throughout Wood; See Wood Par [0051]-[0054] and Fig. 4 which disclose the system including metadata processing operations, for example, combining data from different imaging modalities and/or different imaging studies that are determined by the system to be matches based on certain relevancy criteria further described in Par [0036]; See Wood Par [0032] & [0049] which disclose the system receiving medical studies or medical study information for a particular patient or based on a certain metadata criteria and further describes a network interface unit that facilitates the exchange of information via the hospital network such as via server in Par [0072] and is related to a particular patient or categorized based on other criteria, such as a corresponding plurality of studies being matched in lack of any definition of matching criteria); and
wherein the assembled study set further comprises the one or more matched prior studies and the image data corresponding to the one or more matched prior studies (See Wood Par [0051]-[0054] and Fig. 4 which disclose the system including metadata processing operations, for example, combining data from different imaging modalities and/or different imaging studies that are determined by the system to be matches based on certain relevancy criteria further described in Par [0036]; See Wood Par [0032] & [0049] which disclose the system receiving medical studies or medical study information for a particular patient or based on a certain metadata criteria and further describes a network interface unit that facilitates the exchange of information via the hospital network such as via server in Par [0072] and is related to a particular patient or categorized based on other criteria, such as a corresponding plurality of studies being matched in lack of any definition of matching criteria).
Claim 29 –
Regarding Claim 27, Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla disclose the method of Claim 1 in its entirety. Wood further discloses a method, wherein:
the image data corresponding to the matched current study comprises at least one selected from the group of: X-ray Plain Film (PF) data, digital X-ray data, cardiology imaging device data, Computed Tomography (CT) data, ultrasound image data, nuclear medicine imaging data including Positron-Emission Tomography (PET) data, Veterinary imaging device data, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) data, and mammographic image data (See Wood Par [0033]-[0036] which discloses the use of CT or computer tomography scan, PET scan, and/or MRI scan, as examples for a particular imaging study type which is understood to read on the Claim of choosing one of the matched current study comprising at least one of the alternatives listed above).
Claims 4-10, & 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood, in view of Kopylov, in view of Bronkalla, further in view of Rothschild et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20020019751), hereinafter “Rothschild”.
Claim 4 –
Regarding Claim 4, Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla disclose the method of Claim 1 in its entirety. Wood further discloses a method, wherein:
the determining, at the processor, that the current study is in progress (See Wood Par [0025]-[0034] & Fig. 1 which discloses the use of a network interface unit or network components for purposes of transmitting varying clinical files/hospital data; See Wood Par [0025] which discloses the use of a special-purpose computer or data processor that is specifically programmed. configured or constructed to perform the instructions or methods disclosed throughout Wood) further comprises:
determining, based on the one or more status responses, that the current study is in progress (See Wood Par [0033] which discloses the worklist management unit adding the existence of a new study to the worklist from which a radiologist or practitioner works and as the radiologist completes the associated analysis tasks, the worklist can indicate that the analysis task(s) have been completed, therefore constituting a study that is in progress; Further, see Wood [0049] & [0053] which disclose the appropriate worklist information being generated or retrieved such as the particular study being conducted, the modality, the patient indication, and determining whether the worklist are displayed and/or updated; further, the system determines or tracks if the practitioner has finished analyzing a particular study, and once completed, that study can be removed from the worklist, indicating that the analysis task or tasks have been completed and therefore would constitute the system determining that the study is or is not in progress).
Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla do not further disclose a method, wherein:
sending, from the network device to the first image system, one or more status queries;
receiving, from the first image system at the network device first processing server, one or more status responses corresponding to the one or more status queries; and
However, Rothschild discloses a method wherein the determining step further comprises sending, from the first server to the first image system, one or more status queries and receiving, from the first image system at the first server, one or more status responses corresponding to the one or more status queries (See Rothschild Par [0082]-[0091] which discloses a system for performing a diagnostic operation on the electronic images at a central data management system, the system including polling the central data management system for queued data, the polling system possibly polling the central data management system, containing electronic images, on a preset schedule or periodic basis or even upon occurrence of a predetermined triggering event and upon polling the central data management system, the central data management system delivers the image itself or related metadata, for example, radiologist or physician notes, text, voice-overs, time, data, and person reviewing the images, comments, instructions as well as other information relating to diagnosis, treatment or the patient's medical record; further, Par [0087] specifically states the central data management system will then send queued data such as information concerning delivery and review status of the delivered medical image(s)). The disclosure of Rothschild is directly applicable to the disclosure of Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla because the disclosures share limitations and capabilities, that is, they are both directed towards a medical image and central data management system for processing and updating of medical images/medical image metadata.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosed limitations of Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla regarding determining, at the first server, that the current study is in progress, to further include sending, from the first server to the first image system, one or more status queries and receiving, from the first image system at the first server, one or more status responses corresponding to the one or more status queries, as disclosed in Rothschild, because this allows for polling of the central data management system, providing a result to at least one of a local or remote viewing system upon request by said viewing system, and pushing data to locations over the network implementation (See Rothschild Par [0084]-[0085])
Claim 5 –
Regarding Claim 5, Wood, Kopylov, Bronkalla, and Rothschild disclose the method of Claim 4 in its entirety. Wood and Rothschild further disclose a method, wherein:
the one or more status queries comprise one or more polling requests (See Rothschild Par [0082]-[0091] which discloses a system for performing a diagnostic operation on the electronic images at a central data management system, the system including polling the central data management system for queued data, the polling system possibly polling the central data management system, containing electronic images, on a preset schedule or periodic basis or even upon occurrence of a predetermined triggering event and upon polling the central data management system, the central data management system delivers the image itself or related metadata, for example, radiologist or physician notes, text, voice-overs, time, data, and person reviewing the images, comments, instructions as well as other information relating to diagnosis, treatment or the patient's medical record; further, Par [0087] specifically states the central data management system will then send queued data such as information concerning delivery and review status of the delivered medical image(s)); and
the one or more polling requests are sent from the network device to at least one of the group of a PACS server and a Modality Worklist (See Wood Par [0025]-[0034] & Fig. 1 which discloses the use of a network interface unit or network components for purposes of transmitting varying clinical files/hospital data; See Wood Par [0025] which discloses the use of a special-purpose computer or data processor that is specifically programmed. configured or constructed to perform the instructions or methods disclosed throughout Wood; see Wood Par [0019]-[0020] which specifically discloses the system extracting and parsing study metadata of any format, but typically stored in a DICOM image header or in HL7 format; See Wood Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses a metadata management unit that can extract data from the service software to aid in linking the patient study with the most appropriate service to be used for analyzing said study, for example the management unit can extract information regarding the modality, study type, indication, and/or expected result which the particular service is appropriate for handling; Further, see Wood [0049], [0053], & Fig. 1 which disclose the appropriate worklist information being generated or retrieved on the radiologist’s or practitioner’s workstation via server implementation such as the particular study being conducted, the modality, the patient indication, and determining whether the worklist are displayed and/or updated; See Rothschild Par [0082]-[0091] which discloses a system for performing a diagnostic operation on the electronic images at a central data management system, the system including polling the central data management system for queued data, the polling system possibly polling the central data management system, containing electronic images, on a preset schedule or periodic basis or even upon occurrence of a predetermined triggering event and upon polling the central data management system, the central data management system delivers the image itself or related metadata, for example, radiologist or physician notes, text, voice-overs, time, data, and person reviewing the images, comments, instructions as well as other information relating to diagnosis, treatment or the patient's medical record); and
the determining, based on one or more polling responses corresponding to the one or more polling requests, that the current study is in progress is based on a change to the current study during a change threshold period of time (See Wood Par [0033] which discloses the worklist management unit adding the existence of a new study to the worklist from which a radiologist or practitioner works and as the radiologist completes the associated analysis tasks, the worklist can indicate that the analysis task(s) have been completed, therefore constituting a study that is in progress; Further, while not “threshold” per se, see Wood [0049] & [0053] which disclose the appropriate worklist information being generated or retrieved such as the particular study being conducted, the modality, the patient indication, and determining whether the worklist are displayed and/or updated and the system determines or tracks if the practitioner has finished analyzing a particular study, and once completed, that study can be removed from the worklist, indicating that the analysis task or tasks have been completed and therefore would constitute the system determining that the study is or is not in progress; See Rothschild Par [0082]-[0091] which discloses a system for performing a diagnostic operation on the electronic images at a central data management system, the system including polling the central data management system for queued data, the polling system possibly polling the central data management system, containing electronic images, on a preset schedule or periodic basis or even upon occurrence of a predetermined triggering event and upon polling the central data management system, the central data management system delivers the image itself or related metadata, for example, radiologist or physician notes, text, voice-overs, time, data, and person reviewing the images, comments, instructions as well as other information relating to diagnosis, treatment or the patient's medical record; further, Par [0087] specifically states the central data management system will then send queued data such as information concerning delivery and review status of the delivered medical image(s)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Wood, Kopylov, and Rothschild regarding sending and receiving status queries over network implementation and thereby determining whether a study is current, to further include the status query specifically comprising polling requests at a recurring or set period of time, as disclosed by Rothschild, because this allows for polling at recurring or set periods of time of the central data management system and thereby providing a result to at least one of a local or remote viewing system upon request by said viewing system or set period of time and pushing image data/metadata to the local or remote locations over the network implementation (See Rothschild Par [0084]-[0085])
Claim 6 –
Regarding Claim 6, Wood, Kopylov, Bronkalla, and Rothschild disclose the method of Claim 5 in its entirety. Rothschild further disclose a method, wherein:
the one or more polling requests are recurrently sent at a polling interval (See Rothschild Par [0082]-[0091] which discloses a system for performing a diagnostic operation on the electronic images at a central data management system, the system including polling the central data management system for queued data, the polling system possibly polling the central data management system, containing electronic images, on a preset schedule or periodic basis or even upon occurrence of a predetermined triggering event and upon polling the central data management system, the central data management system delivers the image itself or related metadata, for example, radiologist or physician notes, text, voice-overs, time, data, and person reviewing the images, comments, instructions as well as other information relating to diagnosis, treatment or the patient's medical record).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Wood, Kopylov, Bronkalla, and Rothschild regarding sending and receiving polling requests over network implementation and thereby determining whether a study is current, to further include the polling requests being set at a recurring or set period of time, as disclosed by Rothschild, because this allows for polling at recurring or set periods of time of the central data management system and thereby providing a result to at least one of a local or remote viewing system upon request by said viewing system or set period of time and pushing image data/metadata to the local or remote locations over the network implementation (See Rothschild Par [0084]-[0085]).
Claim 7 –
Regarding Claim 7, Wood, Kopylov, Bronkalla, and Rothschild disclose the method of Claim 6 in its entirety. Wood and Rothschild further disclose a method, wherein:
determining, based on the polling response, that the current study has not changed at an expiry of the change threshold and that the current study is complete (See Wood Par [0033] which discloses the worklist management unit adding the existence of a new study to the worklist from which a radiologist or practitioner works and as the radiologist completes the associated analysis tasks, the worklist can indicate that the analysis task(s) have been completed, therefore constituting a study that is in progress; Further, while not “threshold” per se, see Wood [0049] & [0053] which disclose the appropriate worklist information being generated or retrieved such as the particular study being conducted, the modality, the patient indication, and determining whether the worklist are displayed and/or updated and the system determines or tracks if the practitioner has finished analyzing a particular study, and once completed, that study can be removed from the worklist, indicating that the analysis task or tasks have been completed and therefore would constitute the system determining that the study is or is not in progress; furthermore, from this claim being disclosed from Wood, it is understood that if a current study has not changed, the current study is considered to be complete; Further see Rothschild Par [0088] which discloses the event causing the polling system to request queued status data on a study being the expiration of a preset time interval).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Wood, Kopylov, Bronkalla, and Rothschild regarding sending and receiving status queries over network implementation and thereby determining whether a study is current, to further include the status query specifically comprising polling requests at a recurring or set period of time, as disclosed by Rothschild, because this allows for polling at recurring or set periods of time of the central data management system and thereby providing a result to at least one of a local or remote viewing system upon request by said viewing system or set period of time and pushing image data/metadata to the local or remote locations over the network implementation. (See Rothschild Par [0084]-[0085])
Claim 8 –
Regarding Claim 8, Wood, Kopylov, Bronkalla and Rothschild disclose the method of Claim 7 in its entirety. Wood and Rothschild further disclose a method, wherein:
the polling interval and the change threshold are configurable (While not “threshold” per se, see Wood [0049] & [0053] which disclose the appropriate worklist information being generated or retrieved such as the particular study being conducted, the modality, the patient indication, and determining whether the worklist are displayed and/or updated and the system determines or tracks if the practitioner has finished analyzing a particular study, and once completed, that study can be removed from the worklist, indicating that the analysis task or tasks have been completed and therefore would constitute the system determining that the study is or is not in progress; See Rothschild Par [0082]-[0091] which discloses a system for performing a diagnostic operation on the electronic images at a central data management system, the system including polling the central data management system for queued data, the polling system possibly polling the central data management system, containing electronic images, on a preset schedule or periodic basis or even upon occurrence of a predetermined triggering event, which is understood to read on the polling interval and change threshold being configurable, and upon polling the central data management system, the central data management system delivers the image itself or related metadata, for example, radiologist or physician notes, text, voice-overs, time, data, and person reviewing the images, comments, instructions as well as other information relating to diagnosis, treatment or the patient's medical record; further, Par [0087] specifically states the central data management system will then send queued data such as information concerning delivery and review status of the delivered medical image(s)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Wood, Kopylov, Bronkalla, and Rothschild regarding sending and receiving polling requests over network implementation and thereby determining whether a study is current, to further include the polling requests being configurable to be set at a recurring or set period of time, as disclosed by Rothschild, because this allows for polling at recurring or set periods of time of the central data management system and thereby providing a result to at least one of a local or remote viewing system upon request by said viewing system or set period of time and pushing image data/metadata to the local or remote locations over the network implementation (See Rothschild Par [0084]-[0085]).
Claim 9 –
Regarding Claim 9, Wood, Kopylov, Bronkalla, and Rothschild disclose the method of Claim 8 in its entirety. Rothschild further discloses a method, wherein:
the polling interval and the change threshold are selected based on a performance metric of the network device or the processor (under broadest reasonable interpretation, a performance metric of a server includes any metric that is indicative of status, connection, or performance, therefore See Wood Par [0025]-[0034] & Fig. 1 which discloses the use of a network interface unit or network components for purposes of transmitting varying clinical files/hospital data; See Wood Par [0025] which discloses the use of a special-purpose computer or data processor that is specifically programmed. configured or constructed to perform the instructions or methods disclosed throughout Wood; See Rothschild Par [0084]-[0085] which discloses the polling system being provided with the image push system, and that if the delivery of the images via push system fails after a predetermined number of attempts, the data will be placed in a queue in the central data management system with a destination identifier; further see Rothschild Par [0184]-[0189] which further discloses the polling system including a connection status monitor to track the connection status of the module via the first server, and thereby changing the polling interval depending on the connection status, i.e. not polling if the connection status is determined to be disconnected or off).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Wood, Kopylov, Bronkalla, and Rothschild regarding sending and receiving polling requests over network implementation and thereby determining whether a study is current, to further include the polling interval and the change threshold being selected based on a performance metric of the first server, as disclosed by Rothschild, because this allows for polling at recurring or set periods of time of the central data management system only during periods of stable network connection, thereby providing a result to at least one of a local or remote viewing system upon request by said viewing system or set period of time along with periods of stable network connection and pushing image data/metadata to the local or remote locations over the network implementation (See Rothschild Par [0084]-[0085] & [0184]-[0185]).
Claim 10 –
Regarding Claim 10, Wood, Kopylov, Bronkalla, and Rothschild disclose the method of Claim 6 in its entirety. Wood further discloses a method, wherein:
the determining, at the processor (See Wood Par [0025] which discloses the use of a special-purpose computer or data processor that is specifically programmed, configured, or constructed to perform the instructions or methods disclosed throughout Wood), that the current study is in progress further comprises:
receiving, at the network device, the second image series metadata (See Wood Par [0025]-[0034] & Fig. 1 which discloses the use of a network interface unit or network components for purposes of transmitting varying clinical files/hospital data; See Wood Par [0076] which discloses the combining of the plurality of existing patient studies that have been matched via the criteria or patient information matching, such as a CT scan in combination with a PET scan, to generate new patient data to be processed by the practitioner or radiologist, and once such information is generated, it can automatically be stored and retrieved via the system as a new patient study and can accordingly be available for other practitioners to access and use for processing purposes); and
applying, at the processor, one or more relevancy matching rules to the second image series metadata (See Wood Par [0025] which discloses the use of a special-purpose computer or data processor that is specifically programmed. configured or constructed to perform the instructions or methods disclosed throughout Wood; See Wood Par [0076] which discloses the combining of the plurality of existing patient studies that have been matched via the criteria or patient information matching, such as a CT scan in combination with a PET scan, to generate new patient data to be processed by the practitioner or radiologist, and once such information is generated, it can automatically be stored and retrieved via the system as a new patient study and can accordingly be available for other practitioners to access and use for processing purposes).
Claim 19 –
Regarding Claim 19, Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla disclose the system of Claim 16 in its entirety. Wood and Rothschild further disclose a system, wherein:
the processor is further configured (See Wood Par [0025] which discloses a processor that is specifically programmed, configured, or constructed to perform one of the computer-executable instructions that is described throughout Wood):
send, from the processing server to the first image system, one or more status queries (See Wood Par [0025] which discloses the use of a special-purpose computer or data processor that is specifically programmed. configured or constructed to perform the instructions or methods disclosed throughout Wood; See Rothschild Par [0082]-[0091] which discloses a system for performing a diagnostic operation on the electronic images at a central data management system, the system including polling the central data management system for queued data, the polling system possibly polling the central data management system, containing electronic images, on a preset schedule or periodic basis or even upon occurrence of a predetermined triggering event and upon polling the central data management system, the central data management system delivers the image itself or related metadata, for example, radiologist or physician notes, text, voice-overs, time, data, and person reviewing the images, comments, instructions as well as other information relating to diagnosis, treatment or the patient's medical record; further, Par [0087] specifically states the central data management system will then send queued data such as information concerning delivery and review status of the delivered medical image(s));
receive, from the first image system at the processing server, one or more status responses corresponding to the one or more status queries (See Wood Par [0025] which discloses the use of a special-purpose computer or data processor that is specifically programmed. configured or constructed to perform the instructions or methods disclosed throughout Wood; See Rothschild Par [0082]-[0091] which discloses a system for performing a diagnostic operation on the electronic images at a central data management system, the system including polling the central data management system for queued data, the polling system possibly polling the central data management system, containing electronic images, on a preset schedule or periodic basis or even upon occurrence of a predetermined triggering event and upon polling the central data management system, the central data management system delivers the image itself or related metadata, for example, radiologist or physician notes, text, voice-overs, time, data, and person reviewing the images, comments, instructions as well as other information relating to diagnosis, treatment or the patient's medical record; further, Par [0087] specifically states the central data management system will then send queued data such as information concerning delivery and review status of the delivered medical image(s)); and
determine, based on the one or more status responses, that the current study is in progress (See Wood Par [0033] which discloses the worklist management unit adding the existence of a new study to the worklist from which a radiologist or practitioner works and as the radiologist completes the associated analysis tasks, the worklist can indicate that the analysis task(s) have been completed, therefore constituting a study that is in progress; Further, while not “threshold” per se, see Wood [0049] & [0053] which disclose the appropriate worklist information being generated or retrieved such as the particular study being conducted, the modality, the patient indication, and determining whether the worklist are displayed and/or updated and the system determines or tracks if the practitioner has finished analyzing a particular study, and once completed, that study can be removed from the worklist, indicating that the analysis task or tasks have been completed and therefore would constitute the system determining that the study is or is not in progress; furthermore, from this claim being disclosed from Wood, it is understood that if a current study has not changed, the current study is considered to be complete; See Rothschild Par [0082]-[0091] which discloses a system for performing a diagnostic operation on the electronic images at a central data management system, the system including polling the central data management system for queued data, the polling system possibly polling the central data management system, containing electronic images, on a preset schedule or periodic basis or even upon occurrence of a predetermined triggering event and upon polling the central data management system, the central data management system delivers the image itself or related metadata, for example, radiologist or physician notes, text, voice-overs, time, data, and person reviewing the images, comments, instructions as well as other information relating to diagnosis, treatment or the patient's medical record; further, Par [0087] specifically states the central data management system will then send queued data such as information concerning delivery and review status of the delivered medical image(s)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosed limitations of Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla regarding determining, at the first server, that the current study is in progress, to further include sending, from the first server to the first image system, one or more status queries and receiving, from the first image system at the first server, one or more status responses corresponding to the one or more status queries, as disclosed in Rothschild, because this allows for polling of the central data management system, providing a result to at least one of a local or remote viewing system upon request by said viewing system, and pushing data to locations over the network implementation (See Rothschild Par [0084]-[0085]).
Claim 20 –
Regarding Claim 20, Wood, Kopylov, Bronkalla, and Rothschild disclose the system of Claim 19 in its entirety. Wood and Rothschild further disclose a system, wherein:
the one or more status queries comprise one or more polling requests (See Rothschild Par [0082]-[0091] which discloses a system for performing a diagnostic operation on the electronic images at a central data management system, the system including polling the central data management system for queued data, the polling system possibly polling the central data management system, containing electronic images, on a preset schedule or periodic basis or even upon occurrence of a predetermined triggering event and upon polling the central data management system, the central data management system delivers the image itself or related metadata, for example, radiologist or physician notes, text, voice-overs, time, data, and person reviewing the images, comments, instructions as well as other information relating to diagnosis, treatment or the patient's medical record; further, Par [0087] specifically states the central data management system will then send queued data such as information concerning delivery and review status of the delivered medical image(s)); and
the one or more polling requests are sent from the processing server to at least one of the group of a PACS server and a Modality Worklist (See Wood Par [0025] which discloses the use of a special-purpose computer or data processor that is specifically programmed. configured or constructed to perform the instructions or methods disclosed throughout Wood; see Wood Par [0019]-[0020] which specifically discloses the system extracting and parsing study metadata of any format, but typically stored in a DICOM image header or in HL7 format; See Wood Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses a metadata management unit that can extract data from the service software to aid in linking the patient study with the most appropriate service to be used for analyzing said study, for example the management unit can extract information regarding the modality, study type, indication, and/or expected result which the particular service is appropriate for handling; Further, see Wood [0049], [0053], & Fig. 1 which disclose the appropriate worklist information being generated or retrieved on the radiologist’s or practitioner’s workstation via server implementation such as the particular study being conducted, the modality, the patient indication, and determining whether the worklist are displayed and/or updated; See Rothschild Par [0082]-[0091] which discloses a system for performing a diagnostic operation on the electronic images at a central data management system, the system including polling the central data management system for queued data, the polling system possibly polling the central data management system, containing electronic images, on a preset schedule or periodic basis or even upon occurrence of a predetermined triggering event and upon polling the central data management system, the central data management system delivers the image itself or related metadata, for example, radiologist or physician notes, text, voice-overs, time, data, and person reviewing the images, comments, instructions as well as other information relating to diagnosis, treatment or the patient's medical record); and
the determining, based on one or more polling responses corresponding to the one or more polling requests, that the current study is in progress is based on a change to the current study during a change threshold period of time (See Wood Par [0033] which discloses the worklist management unit adding the existence of a new study to the worklist from which a radiologist or practitioner works and as the radiologist completes the associated analysis tasks, the worklist can indicate that the analysis task(s) have been completed, therefore constituting a study that is in progress; Further, while not “threshold” per se, see Wood [0049] & [0053] which disclose the appropriate worklist information being generated or retrieved such as the particular study being conducted, the modality, the patient indication, and determining whether the worklist are displayed and/or updated and the system determines or tracks if the practitioner has finished analyzing a particular study, and once completed, that study can be removed from the worklist, indicating that the analysis task or tasks have been completed and therefore would constitute the system determining that the study is or is not in progress; See Rothschild Par [0082]-[0091] which discloses a system for performing a diagnostic operation on the electronic images at a central data management system, the system including polling the central data management system for queued data, the polling system possibly polling the central data management system, containing electronic images, on a preset schedule or periodic basis or even upon occurrence of a predetermined triggering event and upon polling the central data management system, the central data management system delivers the image itself or related metadata, for example, radiologist or physician notes, text, voice-overs, time, data, and person reviewing the images, comments, instructions as well as other information relating to diagnosis, treatment or the patient's medical record; further, Par [0087] specifically states the central data management system will then send queued data such as information concerning delivery and review status of the delivered medical image(s)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Wood, Kopylov, Bronkalla, and Rothschild regarding sending and receiving status queries over network implementation and thereby determining whether a study is current, to further include the status query specifically comprising polling requests at a recurring or set period of time, as disclosed by Rothschild, because this allows for polling at recurring or set periods of time of the central data management system and thereby providing a result to at least one of a local or remote viewing system upon request by said viewing system or set period of time and pushing image data/metadata to the local or remote locations over the network implementation (See Rothschild Par [0084]-[0085])
Claim 21 –
Regarding Claim 21, Wood, Kopylov, Bronkalla, and Rothschild disclose the system of Claim 20 in its entirety. Rothschild further discloses a system, wherein:
the one or more polling requests are recurrently sent at a polling interval (See Rothschild Par [0082]-[0091] which discloses a system for performing a diagnostic operation on the electronic images at a central data management system, the system including polling the central data management system for queued data, the polling system possibly polling the central data management system, containing electronic images, on a preset schedule or periodic basis or even upon occurrence of a predetermined triggering event and upon polling the central data management system, the central data management system delivers the image itself or related metadata, for example, radiologist or physician notes, text, voice-overs, time, data, and person reviewing the images, comments, instructions as well as other information relating to diagnosis, treatment or the patient's medical record).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Wood, Kopylov, Bronkalla, and Rothschild regarding sending and receiving polling requests over network implementation and thereby determining whether a study is current, to further include the polling requests being set at a recurring or set period of time, as disclosed by Rothschild, because this allows for polling at recurring or set periods of time of the central data management system and thereby providing a result to at least one of a local or remote viewing system upon request by said viewing system or set period of time and pushing image data/metadata to the local or remote locations over the network implementation (See Rothschild Par [0084]-[0085]).
Claim 22 –
Regarding Claim 22, Wood, Kopylov, Bronkalla. and Rothschild disclose the system of Claim 20 in its entirety. Wood and Rothschild further disclose a system, wherein:
the processor is further configured to (See Wood Par [0025] which discloses a processor that is specifically programmed, configured, or constructed to perform one of the computer-executable instructions that is described throughout Wood):
determine, based on the polling response, that the current study has not changed at an expiry of the change threshold and that the current study is complete (See Wood Par [0033] which discloses the worklist management unit adding the existence of a new study to the worklist from which a radiologist or practitioner works and as the radiologist completes the associated analysis tasks, the worklist can indicate that the analysis task(s) have been completed, therefore constituting a study that is in progress; Further, while not “threshold” per se, see Wood [0049] & [0053] which disclose the appropriate worklist information being generated or retrieved such as the particular study being conducted, the modality, the patient indication, and determining whether the worklist are displayed and/or updated and the system determines or tracks if the practitioner has finished analyzing a particular study, and once completed, that study can be removed from the worklist, indicating that the analysis task or tasks have been completed and therefore would constitute the system determining that the study is or is not in progress; furthermore, from this claim being disclosed from Wood, it is understood that if a current study has not changed, the current study is considered to be complete; Further see Rothschild Par [0088] which discloses the event causing the polling system to request queued status data on a study being the expiration of a preset time interval).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Wood, Kopylov, Bronkalla, and Rothschild regarding sending and receiving status queries over network implementation and thereby determining whether a study is current, to further include the status query specifically comprising polling requests at a recurring or set period of time, as disclosed by Rothschild, because this allows for polling at recurring or set periods of time of the central data management system and thereby providing a result to at least one of a local or remote viewing system upon request by said viewing system or set period of time and pushing image data/metadata to the local or remote locations over the network implementation. (See Rothschild Par [0084]-[0085])
Claim 23 –
Regarding Claim 23, Wood, Kopylov, Bronkalla, and Rothschild disclose the system of Claim 22 in its entirety. Wood and Rothschild further disclose a system, wherein:
the polling interval and the change threshold are configurable (While not “threshold” per se, see Wood [0049] & [0053] which disclose the appropriate worklist information being generated or retrieved such as the particular study being conducted, the modality, the patient indication, and determining whether the worklist are displayed and/or updated and the system determines or tracks if the practitioner has finished analyzing a particular study, and once completed, that study can be removed from the worklist, indicating that the analysis task or tasks have been completed and therefore would constitute the system determining that the study is or is not in progress; See Rothschild Par [0082]-[0091] which discloses a system for performing a diagnostic operation on the electronic images at a central data management system, the system including polling the central data management system for queued data, the polling system possibly polling the central data management system, containing electronic images, on a preset schedule or periodic basis or even upon occurrence of a predetermined triggering event, which is understood to read on the polling interval and change threshold being configurable, and upon polling the central data management system, the central data management system delivers the image itself or related metadata, for example, radiologist or physician notes, text, voice-overs, time, data, and person reviewing the images, comments, instructions as well as other information relating to diagnosis, treatment or the patient's medical record; further, Par [0087] specifically states the central data management system will then send queued data such as information concerning delivery and review status of the delivered medical image(s)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Wood, Kopylov, Bronkalla, and Rothschild regarding sending and receiving polling requests over network implementation and thereby determining whether a study is current, to further include the polling requests being configurable to bed set at a recurring or set period of time, as disclosed by Rothschild, because this allows for polling at recurring or set periods of time of the central data management system and thereby providing a result to at least one of a local or remote viewing system upon request by said viewing system or set period of time and pushing image data/metadata to the local or remote locations over the network implementation (See Rothschild Par [0084]-[0085]).
Claim 24 –
Regarding Claim 24, Wood, Kopylov, Bronkalla, and Rothschild disclose the system of Claim 23 in its entirety. Rothschild further discloses a system, wherein:
the polling interval and the polling threshold are selected based on a performance metric of the processing server (under broadest reasonable interpretation, a performance metric of a server includes any metric that is indicative of status, connection, or performance, therefore see Wood Par [0025] which discloses the use of a special-purpose computer or data processor that is specifically programmed. configured or constructed to perform the instructions or methods disclosed throughout Wood; See Rothschild Par [0084]-[0085] which discloses the polling system being provided with the image push system, and that if the delivery of the images via push system fails after a predetermined number of attempts, the data will be placed in a queue in the central data management system with a destination identifier; further see Rothschild Par [0184]-[0189] which further discloses the polling system including a connection status monitor to track the connection status of the module via the first server, and thereby changing the polling interval depending on the connection status, i.e. not polling if the connection status is determined to be disconnected or off).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined disclosure of Wood, Kopylov, Bronkalla, and Rothschild regarding sending and receiving polling requests over network implementation and thereby determining whether a study is current, to further include the polling interval and the change threshold being selected based on a performance metric of the first server, as disclosed by Rothschild, because this allows for polling at recurring or set periods of time of the central data management system only during periods of stable network connection, thereby providing a result to at least one of a local or remote viewing system upon request by said viewing system or set period of time along with periods of stable network connection and pushing image data/metadata to the local or remote locations over the network implementation (See Rothschild Par [0084]-[0085] & [0184]-[0185]).
Claims 15 & 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood, in view of Kopylov, in view of Bronkalla, further in view of Bhatia et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0185713), hereinafter “Bhatia”.
Claim 15 –
Regarding Claim 15, Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla disclose the method of Claim 1 in its entirety. Wood further discloses a method, wherein:
the first image series metadata comprises a timestamp of the first image series collection event (Under broadest reasonable interpretation, without specifying that the actual image acquisition from the imaging device is included in the “image series collection event”, the event can simply be receiving imaging data from either a medical imaging device or database associated with a medical imaging device that has already performed imaging and subsequently stored medical imaging studies and further sends said images to a computer via network implementation; therefore See Wood Par [0032] & [0049] which disclose the system receiving medical studies or medical study information for a particular patient or based on a certain metadata criteria and further describes a network interface unit that facilitates the exchange of information via the hospital network such as via server in Par [0072] or as in Claims 2-3, 5, 14-15, & 17 from a medical device associated with the image data; See Wood Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses a metadata management unit that can extract data/metadata from the plurality of patient imaging studies to aid in linking the patient study with the most appropriate service for example the management unit can extract information and apply relevancy rules, such as keyword matching, regarding the modality, study type, indication, and/or expected result that the particular service is appropriate for handling and Wood Par [0034] further describes combining the results or data from multiple patient studies, creating a new patient study; Wood Par [0036] further describes applying said relevancy rules/keyword matching to determine services that may be suitable for analyzing or otherwise post-processing the data from the one or more patient studies, services of which include, as discussed in Wood Par [0028]-[0029], software for displaying and/or post-processing image data. Wood Par [0049] seems to disclose that if a practitioner is finished analyzed a particular study, the presentation of that study at the display can be updated to indicate which analysis task or tasks have been completed for a particular study Wood does not seem to specify determining if a study is complete based on a comparison between first image series metadata and a second image series metadata);
the second image series metadata comprises a timestamp of the second image series collection event (Under broadest reasonable interpretation, without specifying that the actual image acquisition from the imaging device is included in the “image series collection event”, the event can simply be receiving imaging data from either a medical imaging device or database associated with a medical imaging device that has already performed imaging and subsequently stored medical imaging studies and further sends said images to a computer via network implementation; therefore See Wood Par [0032] & [0049] which disclose the system receiving medical studies or medical study information for a particular patient or based on a certain metadata criteria and further describes a network interface unit that facilitates the exchange of information via the hospital network such as via server in Par [0072] or as in Claims 2-3, 5, 14-15, & 17 from a medical device associated with the image data; See Wood Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses a metadata management unit that can extract data/metadata from the plurality of patient imaging studies to aid in linking the patient study with the most appropriate service for example the management unit can extract information and apply relevancy rules, such as keyword matching, regarding the modality, study type, indication, and/or expected result that the particular service is appropriate for handling and Wood Par [0034] further describes combining the results or data from multiple patient studies, creating a new patient study; Wood Par [0036] further describes applying said relevancy rules/keyword matching to determine services that may be suitable for analyzing or otherwise post-processing the data from the one or more patient studies, services of which include, as discussed in Wood Par [0028]-[0029], software for displaying and/or post-processing image data. Wood Par [0049] seems to disclose that if a practitioner is finished analyzed a particular study, the presentation of that study at the display can be updated to indicate which analysis task or tasks have been completed for a particular study Wood does not seem to specify determining if a study is complete based on a comparison between first image series metadata and a second image series metadata); and
While Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla disclose one or more image series collection events and associated metadata being collected, Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla do not specifically disclose:
the metadata-based comparison of the first image series metadata collected at the first image series collection event and the second image series metadata collected at the subsequent image series collection event comprises a comparison of the timestamp of the first image series collection event and the timestamp of the second image series collection event;
However, Bhatia further discloses the metadata-based comparison of the first image series metadata collected at the first image series collection event and the second image series metadata collected at the subsequent image series collection event comprises a comparison of the timestamp of the first image series collection event and the timestamp of the second image series collection event (See Bhatia Abstract which discloses comparative analysis of medical imaging sets; See Bhatia Par [0005] which discloses comparing two or more image sets with or without relying on the DICOM tag associated with each of the image sets, constituting a comparison of metadata, i.e. timestamp, between multiple image sets such as one at a first image collection event and a second image collection even given by the discrepancy in image collection protocol; See Bhatia Par [0008]-[0010], [0013], & [0032]-[0035] which discloses a comparative view or comparison between multiple medical imaging sessions or studies such that medical images acquired with the identified image acquisition protocol are identified at different time instances, constituting multiple collection events, and further discloses automatically identifying the acquisition protocol, i.e. medical imaging session information which is understood to include the study being in-progress, with acquisition of the set of medical images from the medical imaging device(s)). The disclosure of Bhatia is directly applicable to the disclosure of Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla because the disclosures share limitations and capabilities, such as being directed towards the processing and management of medical imaging studies by using computer systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla which already disclose one or more image series collection events and associated metadata being collected to further include a comparison of the timestamp of the first image series collection event and the timestamp of the second image series collection event, as disclosed by Bhatia, because this allows for determinations of the medical acquisition protocol between multiple studies and any discrepancies that lie between different image series collection events (See Bhatia Par [0008]-[0010], [0013], & [0032]-[0035]).
Claim 30 –
Regarding Claim 30, Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla disclose the method of Claim 1 in its entirety. Wood further discloses a method, wherein:
the first image series metadata comprises a timestamp of the first image series collection event (Under broadest reasonable interpretation, without specifying that the actual image acquisition from the imaging device is included in the “image series collection event”, the event can simply be receiving imaging data from either a medical imaging device or database associated with a medical imaging device that has already performed imaging and subsequently stored medical imaging studies and further sends said images to a computer via network implementation; therefore See Wood Par [0032] & [0049] which disclose the system receiving medical studies or medical study information for a particular patient or based on a certain metadata criteria and further describes a network interface unit that facilitates the exchange of information via the hospital network such as via server in Par [0072] or as in Claims 2-3, 5, 14-15, & 17 from a medical device associated with the image data; See Wood Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses a metadata management unit that can extract data/metadata from the plurality of patient imaging studies to aid in linking the patient study with the most appropriate service for example the management unit can extract information and apply relevancy rules, such as keyword matching, regarding the modality, study type, indication, and/or expected result that the particular service is appropriate for handling and Wood Par [0034] further describes combining the results or data from multiple patient studies, creating a new patient study; Wood Par [0036] further describes applying said relevancy rules/keyword matching to determine services that may be suitable for analyzing or otherwise post-processing the data from the one or more patient studies, services of which include, as discussed in Wood Par [0028]-[0029], software for displaying and/or post-processing image data. Wood Par [0049] seems to disclose that if a practitioner is finished analyzed a particular study, the presentation of that study at the display can be updated to indicate which analysis task or tasks have been completed for a particular study Wood does not seem to specify determining if a study is complete based on a comparison between first image series metadata and a second image series metadata);
the second image series metadata comprises a timestamp of the second image series collection event (Under broadest reasonable interpretation, without specifying that the actual image acquisition from the imaging device is included in the “image series collection event”, the event can simply be receiving imaging data from either a medical imaging device or database associated with a medical imaging device that has already performed imaging and subsequently stored medical imaging studies and further sends said images to a computer via network implementation; therefore See Wood Par [0032] & [0049] which disclose the system receiving medical studies or medical study information for a particular patient or based on a certain metadata criteria and further describes a network interface unit that facilitates the exchange of information via the hospital network such as via server in Par [0072] or as in Claims 2-3, 5, 14-15, & 17 from a medical device associated with the image data; See Wood Par [0035]-[0036] which discloses a metadata management unit that can extract data/metadata from the plurality of patient imaging studies to aid in linking the patient study with the most appropriate service for example the management unit can extract information and apply relevancy rules, such as keyword matching, regarding the modality, study type, indication, and/or expected result that the particular service is appropriate for handling and Wood Par [0034] further describes combining the results or data from multiple patient studies, creating a new patient study; Wood Par [0036] further describes applying said relevancy rules/keyword matching to determine services that may be suitable for analyzing or otherwise post-processing the data from the one or more patient studies, services of which include, as discussed in Wood Par [0028]-[0029], software for displaying and/or post-processing image data. Wood Par [0049] seems to disclose that if a practitioner is finished analyzed a particular study, the presentation of that study at the display can be updated to indicate which analysis task or tasks have been completed for a particular study Wood does not seem to specify determining if a study is complete based on a comparison between first image series metadata and a second image series metadata);
While Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla disclose one or more image series collection events and associated metadata being collected, Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla do not specifically disclose:
the metadata-based comparison of the first image series metadata collected at the first image series collection event and the second image series metadata collected at the subsequent image series collection event comprises a comparison of the timestamp of the first image series collection event and the timestamp of the second image series collection event;
However, Bhatia further discloses the metadata-based comparison of the first image series metadata collected at the first image series collection event and the second image series metadata collected at the subsequent image series collection event comprises a comparison of the timestamp of the first image series collection event and the timestamp of the second image series collection event (See Bhatia Abstract which discloses comparative analysis of medical imaging sets; See Bhatia Par [0005] which discloses comparing two or more image sets with or without relying on the DICOM tag associated with each of the image sets, constituting a comparison of metadata, i.e. timestamp, between multiple image sets such as one at a first image collection event and a second image collection even given by the discrepancy in image collection protocol; See Bhatia Par [0008]-[0010], [0013], & [0032]-[0035] which discloses a comparative view or comparison between multiple medical imaging sessions or studies such that medical images acquired with the identified image acquisition protocol are identified at different time instances, constituting multiple collection events, and further discloses automatically identifying the acquisition protocol, i.e. medical imaging session information which is understood to include the study being in-progress, with acquisition of the set of medical images from the medical imaging device(s)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla which already disclose one or more image series collection events and associated metadata being collected to further include a comparison of the timestamp of the first image series collection event and the timestamp of the second image series collection event, as disclosed by Bhatia, because this allows for determinations of the medical acquisition protocol between multiple studies and any discrepancies that lie between different image series collection events (See Bhatia Par [0008]-[0010], [0013], & [0032]-[0035]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-30, Applicant argues on p. 11-15 of Arguments/Remarks in view of Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claim is not merely an abstract idea because the claim provides technical solutions to technical problems in medical imaging networks, not abstract ideas. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, at least some of the steps recited in the independent claims can be performed reasonably in the human mind, but for recitation of generic computer, i.e. medical/imaging system components. That is, receiving a plurality of medical imaging studies, metadata associated with said medical imaging studies, receiving a subsequent portion of the current study and metadata associated therewith, processing and generating a processed study comprising various image data and clinical information associated with a current study plurality of received studies, and sending said processed study all constitute actions that could be reasonably performed in the human mind. While some of these actions are recited for performance by generic computer components, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that performing a mental process on a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process still constitutes the mental process itself. As such, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the independent claims are directed towards an abstract idea, i.e. a mental process, but for recitation by generic computer components. While additional elements can be found therein, and are further analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, at least some steps of the independent claims do constitute an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1. As such, claims 1-30 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-30, Applicant argues on p. 15-16 of Arguments/Remarks that even if the claims were considered to involve an abstract idea, the claims are integrated into a practical application of said abstract idea, because the claimed methods improve the functioning of a medical imaging network by reducing latency and optimizing resource utilization. More specifically, the method uses real-time metadata received during image acquisition to enable processing workflows before image data is available, enabling the system to dynamically prioritize studies, allocate resources, and initiate pre-processing operations, which constitutes a technical improvement over conventional systems that wait for full image data before initiating any processing. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. That is, while parent application 16/695,642 was found to contain patent-eligible subject matter by reciting an active choice of transmitting a batch of metadata for the imaging files instead of the batch of imaging files itself and utilizing said metadata to determine if the current study is matched in lieu of a comparison between image data associated with the matched study files themselves for determining whether study files matched and needed to be assembled in a system, and thereby actively reducing network traffic associated with assembling studies with separated or individual study files or sessions found in memory, these elements are not included in the instantly pending claims. That is, while Examiner agrees that the system seems to make priority determinations of an order for processing the one or more medical imaging studies by the computer system, this does not necessarily reflect a technical improvement to prior art systems. That is, merely determining an order in which studies should be processed, whether automated or manually and/or based on metadata/actual imaging data, reads as merely specifying details of an already-established abstraction. For instance, optimizing the order in which work is being done or processed by a computer constitutes a mental process of a user performing said optimizations/determinations and using a computer as a tool for implementing said optimizations/determinations, but for automating said optimizations/decisions by one or more computer components. That is, mere automation of manual processes does not typically show an improvement in computer functionality, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)(iii). Furthermore, while Applicant may be arguing similar reasoning that parent application 16/695,642 presented regarding an active choice of transmitting a batch of metadata for the imaging files instead of the batch of imaging files itself and utilizing said metadata for determining matching study files to reduce processing resources/network traffic, this aspect was presented as an active choice and improvement by utilizing said metadata to determine matching clinical studies/files instead of a mere result or intended use. For instance, the instant Spec Par [0010] details that “it is therefore desirable to determine relevant and related studies, series, and images using metadata associated with the medical images to avoid unnecessary resource usage”. That is, there are no indications that it would be desirable to determine a processing priority based on metadata or that prior art systems have a shortcoming in their systems regarding said aspects of determining a processing priority. Rather, the instant specification is heavily directed towards improvements over prior art systems regarding specifically utilizing metadata for determining matching study files of one or more separated imaging files for a patient, and the determinations of a processing priority is an afterthought. Furthermore, prior art systems disclose determinations of said processing priority, and therefore, without explanations/evidence regarding shortcomings in determinations of said processing priority by prior art systems that are similar to those found in parent application 16/695,642 presented regarding determining matching study files, the claims do not seem to amount to a technical improvement over prior art systems. As such, claims 1-30 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-30, Applicant argues on p. 16-17 of Arguments/Remarks that the claims amount to significantly more than any recited judicial exception, because the claims recite specific, non-conventional steps that are technically rooted in the domain of medical imaging networks. More specifically, Applicant argues that real-time receipt of metadata during imaging, dynamic prioritization of processing based on metadata attributes such as modality type and urgency, and the initiation of pre-processing operations before image data is received enable the system to anticipate and prepare for incoming studies, thereby reducing latency and improving resource utilization. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. That is, each of the steps recited in the independent and dependent claims that constituted additional elements were analyzed and determined to recite well-understood, routine, and/or conventional activity found in prior art systems or as determined by the courts. Regarding Applicant’s specific arguments of real-time receipt of metadata during imaging, this amounts to mere data gathering/data transmission efforts, dynamic prioritization of processing based on metadata attributes such as modality type and urgency amounts to repetitive calculations of determining processing priority for one or more studies and implementing said priority, and the initiation of pre-processing operations before image data is received also amounts to performance of repetitive calculations but in a specific manner, i.e. before receiving image data. Therefore, each of the additional elements were determined to constitute well-understood, routine, and/or conventional activity in prior art systems. As such, claims 1-30 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-30, Applicant argues on p. 17-20 of Arguments/Remarks that the previously applied references (Wood, Kopylov, Rothschild, and Bhatia) do not read on the newly amended limitations regarding “determining, by a processor, a processing priority for the current study based on one or more metadata elements of the first and second image series metadata, the metadata elements comprising at least one of modality type, expected study duration and patient status: scheduling, by the processor, a clinical software application from the plurality of clinical software applications to process the current study based on the determined processing priority…” as recited in independent claims 1 & 16. Applicant further argues that therefore, independent claims 1 & 16 are allowable over the prior art. Examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Wood, Kopylov, and Bronkalla for independent claims 1 & 16. This new ground of rejection relies on newly-cited portions of Wood, and the newly-applied disclosure of Bronkalla to read on the newly amended limitations found in the independent claims. That is, while Applicant argues against Wood, Kopylov, Bhatia, and/or Rothschild from disclosing determinations of a processing priority, newly-applied Bronkalla is entirely relied upon for aspects regarding said processing priority, such as “determining, by a processor, a processing priority for the current study based on one or more metadata elements of the first and second image series metadata, the metadata elements comprising at least one of modality type, expected study duration, and patient status” and scheduling, by the processor, a clinical software application from the plurality of clinical software applications to process the current study based on the determined processing priority.” As such, independent claims 1 & 16 and claims dependent therefrom remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-30, Applicant argues on p. 20 of Arguments/Remarks that because independent claims 1 & 16 are purportedly allowable over the prior art, by virtue of dependency, dependent claims 2-15 & 17-30 should also be allowable over the prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. As discussed above, independent claims 1 & 16 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claims 1 & 16 being allowable over the prior art are effectively rendered moot. As such, dependent claims 2-15 & 17-30 inherit the deficiencies of independent claim 1 & 16 and also remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Nguyen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,853,449) discloses a system for producing reports, formatting, and/or analysis of medical imaging data and medical diagnosis such that the system produces a clinically appropriate output reflecting both the actual imaging data and the overall clinical situation of the patient
Cohen Maimon et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0250826) discloses a system for processing data extracted from frames of video signals, including images and/or videos that are found in a PACS imaging system, such that a captured current 2D frame is analyzed to identify one or more metadata elements, optionally DICOM metadata, for adjustment of presentation parameters of said 2D frames in an assembled and/or reconstructed 3D image;
Choi et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0140098) discloses a system for increasing efficiency of processing image data according to one or more DICOM, i.e. metadata, standards/parameters;
Wallace et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0074985) discloses a system for retrieving and processing metadata, such that the system is able to provide metadata that is relevant for all instances in an imaging study when not all instances are available yet, i.e. imaging data is available yet.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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 HUNTER J RASNIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5801. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-5:30pm.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached on (571) 270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684