DETAILED ACTION
Notices to Applicant
This communication is a final rejection. Claims 1-3 and 5-15, as filed 12/10/2025, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority is generally acknowledged as shown on the filing receipt dated 04/02/2024 with the earliest priority being 03/30/2023.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 was amended to include the limitations of claim 11, so claim 11 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim. The scopes of claims 8 and 11 are identical. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-9, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arlagadda (USP App. Pub. No. 2021/0158938).
Regarding claim 1, Arlagadda discloses: A medical image display apparatus, comprising:
--a display that displays, through a first viewer, a first medical image stored in a first server (“FIG. 1 illustrates an example system 100 in which a remote primary exam is to be read at a local site. As shown in the example of FIG. 1, a local site includes a workflow manager 110, a diagnostic viewer 120, a PACS 130, and an EA 140,” [0050]); and
--a hardware processor that obtains a related medical image that is a second medical image related to the first medical image and is displayable through a second viewer, from a second server that stores the second medical image (“the meta data processor 160 can gather meta data from local sources such as the PACS 130, archive 140, etc., and can trigger the study data streaming service 170 to gather meta data from remote sources 150, 152, for example. The study data streaming service 170 also provides pixel data to the viewer 120 from one or more remote sources 150, 152, for example,” [0062),
--wherein the display displays, through the first viewer, the related medical image obtained by the hardware processor (“From any of these locations, the user can launch the image for side by side comparison with the primary exam. Viewer tools can be used on the remote comparison, for example. The remote images are streamed from the source, thereby avoiding the need to move images around the network and eliminating the need for complex synchronization techniques. Access to remote studies is improved by integrating a cross-enterprise network into a radiologist's existing workflows, allowing them access to view images side by side without having to launch another viewer, for example.” [0086]);
--wherein the hardware processor causes the first server to store the related medical image obtained by the hardware processor, and when a predetermined time period elapses after the first server is caused to store the related medical image, the hardware processor removes the related medical image stored in the first server (“images/studies can be pre-fetched from remote sources 150-152 based on arrival of a new study in a worklist or queue to be reviewed. When the new study (e.g., an order, a scheduled exam, a performed procedure, etc.) arrives locally, a remote query can be triggered to prefetch corresponding data to be displayed via the viewer 120, for example,” [0093]; “storage device or storage disk in which information is stored for any duration (e.g., for extended time periods, permanently, for brief instances, for temporarily buffering, and/or for caching of the information),” [0097]; [0062]).
Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected with the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 2, Arlagadda discloses: wherein the display juxtaposes and displays the first medical image and the related medical image, through the first viewer (“Additionally, remote comparisons of images, exams, etc., can be hung together at the local viewer 120 by retrieving and displaying the images/exams at the local viewer 120 according to local viewer 120 preferences, hanging protocol, smart reading protocol,” [0052]).
Regarding claim 5, Arlagadda discloses: wherein the hardware processor adds common identification information to first patient information on a patient who is a subject of the first medical image, and to second patient information on a patient who is a subject of the related medical image (“if a patient was seen at hospital A with a first identifier and at hospital B with a second identifier, the workflow manager 110 can match the first and second identifiers to the same patient (e.g., using patient identifying information such as name, address, social security number, physiological data, patterns of data, etc.) and retrieve and hang all related data, both local 140 and remote 150, at the viewer 120 for analysis at hospital A (or remote from home/travel, etc.),” [0055]; matching patient in [0070] and [0088]-[0089]).
Regarding claim 7, Arlagadda discloses: wherein the first medical image is a medical image generated in a first facility, and the second medical image is a medical image generated in a second facility ([0051]).
Claims 9, 11, 12, and 14 are substantially similar to claim 2, 2, 5, and 7 (respectively) and are rejected with the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arlagadda (USP App. Pub. No. 2021/0158938) in view of Masuzawa (JP2015114695A).
Regarding claim 3, Arlagadda discloses: an operation receiver that a user operates (“the input device(s) 1822 permit(s) a user to enter data and/or commands into the processor 1812,” [0118]).
Arlagadda does not expressly disclose but Masuzawa teaches: wherein the display displays the related medical image through the second viewer, and when the related medical image is displayed through the second viewer, the hardware processor obtains the related medical image, based on an instruction from the operation receiver (multiple viewers: “As the integrated viewer 23, any mounting form (software) such as a Web application, a fat client application, or a thin client application may be adopted” on page 3; “The system as described above may be provided for each medical institution, and the user goes from his / her own medical institution (own facility) to another medical institution (other facility) and uses the system in the other medical institution. In some cases, the user uses an application different from the system in his / her own medical institution, and cannot perform various tasks such as inspection, diagnosis, and interpretation using his / her usual workflow,” page 2).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to expand the image viewing platform of Arlagadda to include the second viewer of Masuzawa because giving the user two different viewer options would allow the user to choose the viewer that is more appropriate for the task at hand, thus improving user convenience and efficiency (Masuzawa page 2).
Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 3 and is rejected with the same reasoning.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arlagadda (USP App. Pub. No. 2021/0158938) in view of Zhang (USP App. Pub. No. 2021/0256009).
Regarding claim 6, Arlagadda does not expressly disclose but Zhang teaches: wherein when the first patient information or the second patient information is changed, the hardware processor invalidates the common identification information (assigning an identifying hash that is invalidated if the underlying information changes in [0134] ).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to expand the image viewing platform of Arlagadda to include the data integrity techniques of Zhang because this would maintain the integrity of the underlying patient data if the data is updated on another system (Zhang [0106]).
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 6 and is rejected with the same reasoning.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered and are discussed below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the anticipation of claim 1, Remarks page 6, are unpersuasive. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the term “obtained” in claim 1 is not limited to any specific triggering event such as a manual user request. Applicant argues that Arlagadda’s “pre-fetching” is distinct from the claimed “obtaining” because the images in the instant claims are only gathered “when requested”. Remarks page 6. However, the claim language merely requires that the hardware processor “obtains a related medical image” which is anticipated by Arlagadda in [0093] (“a relevancy algorithm can be applied to match patient, procedure, reason for exam, body part, image type, schedule, etc., to retrieve relevant data for display and review”) and [0062] (“The study data streaming service 170 also provides pixel data to the viewer 120 from one or more remote sources 150, 152, for example.”). Whether the data is obtained by an automatic pre-fetch or in response to a manual request, it still falls within the BRI of “obtaining” as currently claimed. Applicant appears to a read the claim as requiring a negative limitation (i.e., the images are not obtained by an automated process) but this is not found in the claims and thus cannot be used to distinguish from the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action (See MPEP 706.07(a)). Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BLANCHETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-2299. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7:30AM - 6:00PM, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JOSHUA B BLANCHETTE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624