DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 June 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-4, 6-15, and 17 are pending in the present application. Claims 1, 8, 15, and 17 were amended; and claims 5, 16, and 18 have status cancelled..
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 and Oh et al. Migration of Web Applications with Seamless Execution.
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: warning information indicating required time for transferring and restoring the medical data to the first storage [note: paragraph 0052-0054 router ]; and
an execution button configured to receive an instruction to restore the medical data to the first storage from the second storage such that a user can select whether to proceed with the transferring and restoring.
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 “an execution button configured to receive an instruction to restore the medical data to the first storage from the second storage such that a user can select whether to proceed with the transferring and restoring”.. Hallwachs does teach means for sending notification regarding recovery [note: paragraph 0108]. However, Ho et al. teach a execution button for recovery button on the computer screen to implement recovery of data [note: abstract, browser recovery feature “execution button” for recovery; 1 Browser extension of Chrome browser “Restore” button feature, page 174; also see pages 175, means for implementing a time interval; ; page 176, section 3.3 JavaScript allows for automatic recovery; page 182, section 6.2 script may be written to display restoration time]. 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 an execution button on the web browser screen for recovery would provide means for sending notification of system status.
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 the 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 Oh et al. teach an execution button for recovery of data.
ARGUMENT: The prior art does not teach “an execution button configured to receive an instruction to receive the medical data to the first storage from the second storage such that a user can select whether to proceed with the transferring and restoring”.
RESPONSE: Note newly cited reference Oh et al. teach an execution button on the web browser for recovery of data note, figure 1 and citations within Office Action above .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note attached form PTO-892.
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
Prosecution Insights