Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/621,592

MEDICAL INFORMATION STORING SYSTEM, MEDICAL INFORMATION STORING METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 29, 2024
Examiner
ROBINSON, GRETA LEE
Art Unit
2163
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Konica Minolta Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
779 granted / 969 resolved
+25.4% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
994
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.6%
-34.4% vs TC avg
§103
38.4%
-1.6% vs TC avg
§102
13.0%
-27.0% vs TC avg
§112
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 969 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-4, 6-15, and 17 are pending in the present application. Claims 1, 15, and 17 were amended; and claims 5, 16, and 18 were cancelled in the response filed 23 December 2025. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-15,and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominick et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0300016 A1 in view of Dysert et al. US Patent 11,354,229 B1 and Hallwachs US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0363563 A1. Regarding claim 1, Dominick et al. teaches the following: A medical information storing system, [note: Abstract, “A method for relocating medical data in a computer network” ] comprising: a hardware processor that: stores medical data related to medical care in a first storage provided in a cloud [note: paragraph 0009, relocating data using a processor ]; transfers, from the first storage, the medical data satisfying a designated condition to a second storage provided in the cloud, wherein the second storage requires a longer reading time period than the first storage does [note: paragraph 0043, relocation plan considers storage nodes, including cloud, technical conditions, bandwidth, latency, device type; paragraph 0045, means for configuring strategies, defining conditions through relocation plan, and policy implementation; paragraph 0048 optimization strategies may be defined ]; manages a storing state of the medical data [note: paragraph 0020, relocation status ]; and in response to a reference request for the medical data stored in the second storage causing a display to display an execution button and warning information indicating required time for transferring and restoring the medical image in the first storage [note: paragraph 0052-0054 router ]. Although Dominick et al. teach the invention as cited, they do not explicitly disclose restoration of the data; however Dysert teaches restoration of medical data [note: column 6 lines 33-49, storage service capabilities include storage characteristics such as long latency for archival of data, defining constraints for storage of data and resource type and restoration of data]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing date to have combined the cited references since both references are concerned with optimized management of data and a recovery method adds to the security and protection of data. Although Dominick et al. and Dysert et al. teach the invention as cited they do not explicitly teach warning information. Dominick et al. does teach information status; however Hallwachs further discloses sending notifications regarding warning and restoration [note: paragraph 0108, collaboration service policy include alerts and notification services]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing date to have combined the cited references because alerts would enhance the management of the data. Although Dominick et al., Dysert, and Hallwachs teach the invention as cited above, they do not teach “causing a display to display an execution button” . Hallwachs does teach means for sending notification regarding recovery [note: paragraph 0108]. However, Chen teach a recovery button on the computer system to trigger recovery of information [note: abstract, recovery button; cover figure (1231) recovery system]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing date to have combined the cited references because a recovery button would provide means for sending notification of system status as discussed in Dominick et al. with respect to latency and Hallwachs with respect to notifications.. alerts would enhance the management of the data. Claim 2: The medical information storing system according to claim 1, wherein the designated condition is at least one of an examination date of a patient, and an examination receipt date [note: Dominick et al., paragraph 0043 and 0045, means for implementing or defining conditions ]. Claim 3: The medical information storing system according to claim 1, wherein the designated condition is a lapse of a predetermined period from a latest examination registration of a patient, or a lapse of a predetermined period from hospital visiting of the patient [note: Dominick et al., paragraph 0043 and 0045, means for implementing or defining conditions ]. Claim 4: The medical information storing system according to claim 1, wherein the designated condition is death of a patient, or complete recovery of the patient [note: Dominick et al., paragraph 0043 and 0045, means for implementing or defining conditions ]. Claim 6: The medical information storing system according to claim 1, further comprising: a first database that is provided in a facility, and manages the storing state of the medical data; and a second database that is provided in the cloud, and manages the storing state of the medical data, wherein the hardware processor synchronizes the storing state of the medical data in the first database with the storing state of the medical data in the second database.[note: Dominick et al., paragraph 0020, relocation status including finishing status]. Claim 7: The medical information storing system according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor outputs the storing state or the warning information to an information processing apparatus provided in a facility, and to an information processing apparatus provided in the cloud. [note: Dominick et al., Paragraph 0020, status information; paragraphs 0052-0054 router]. Claim 8: The medical information storing system according to claim 1, wherein once the medical data stored in the second storage are referred to, the hardware processor copies the medical data stored in the second storage to the first storage, and the hardware processor removes the medical data copied to the first storage, in accordance with a period set by a user [note: Dysert et al., column 5 lines 4-17 storage services allow for replication; column 6 lines 1-20, replication/copies of data]. Claim 9: The medical information storing system according to claim 8, wherein the hardware processor outputs a scheduled removal time at which the medical data copied to the first storage are removed from the first storage [note: Hallwachs, paragraph 0146, scheduling means]. Claim 10: The medical information storing system according to claim 1, wherein the medical data includes medical image data, and in a case where the medical image data, and compressed data obtained by reducing a data size of the medical image data are available, the hardware processor transfers only the medical image data to the second storage [note: Dominick et al., paragraph 0045 flexible configurable strategies and information collection; paragraph 0077, “conditions for relocating” may be implemented]. Claim 11: The medical information storing system according to claim 1, wherein when transferring the medical data to the second storage, the hardware processor integrates multiple pieces of the medical data into one file, and transfers the file to the second storage [note: Dominick et al., paragraph 0045 flexible configurable strategies and information collection; paragraph 0077, “conditions for relocating” may be implemented]. Claim 12: The medical information storing system according to claim 1, wherein once the medical data stored in the second storage are referred to, the hardware processor outputs a scheduled restoration time of the medical data to be restored in the first storage.[ note: Hallwachs, paragraph 0146, scheduling means].. Claim 13: The medical information storing system according to claim 1, wherein once copying of the medical data to the first storage is completed, the hardware processor automatically outputs the medical data that have been restored to an external apparatus having transmitted a reference request [note: Dysert et al., column 5 lines 4-17 storage services allow for replication; column 6 lines 1-20, replication/copies of data].. Claim 14: The medical information storing system according to claim 1, wherein once the medical data stored in the second storage are referred to, the hardware processor outputs selection information for selecting whether to download the medical data or not after the restoration of the medical data [note: Dominick et al., paragraphs 0043 and 0060, means for selecting, downloading and pushing data through interface]. The limitations of independent claims 15 and 17 parallel independent claim 1; therefore they are rejected under the same rationale.. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-15, and 17 have been considered but are moot in view of the newly cited rejection. Note newly cited reference Chen et al. teach a recovery button. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note attached form PTO-892. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRETA ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:30AM-6:00PM. 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, Hassan Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /GRETA L ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 29, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 23, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596617
MAINTAINING FASTCOPY-OVERWRITE OPTIMIZATION USING KEY-VALUE PAIR FILE HANDLES FOR BACKUPS CLONED ACROSS NAMESPACES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586690
PLATFORM AND INTERFACES FOR FACILITATING COMMUNICATION IN A CLINICAL SERVICE ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585670
DYNAMICALLY SCALING APPLICATION AND STORAGE SYSTEM FUNCTIONS BASED ON A HETEROGENEOUS RESOURCE POOL AVAILABLE FOR USE BY A DISTRIBUTED STORAGE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579048
SEARCH AND RECOMMENDATION ENGINE ALLOWING RECOMMENDATION-AWARE PLACEMENT OF DATA ASSETS TO MINIMIZE LATENCY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12561384
SEARCH AND RECOMMENDATION ENGINE ALLOWING RECOMMENDATION-AWARE PLACEMENT OF DATA ASSETS TO MINIMIZE MAXIMAL LOAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+17.1%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 969 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month