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
In the amendment filed on November 11, 2025, the following has occurred: claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 10-11, 14, 16, 18 have been amended. Now, claim(s) 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: “…a CT system.” in p. 6, ll. 6. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “…a computed tomography (CT) system.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1: Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recite(s)
defining, a model of a radiation oncology system, the model including elements of the radiation oncology system as nodes, and relationships therebetween as edges;
initiating a C-MOVE request comprising inducing a source workflow step to send a query to determine a processing capability and an available storage space of the destination system element;
selecting, a transfer path from the imaging system to the destination system element based on the model of the radiation oncology system and the processing capability of the destination system element;
transforming data of the imaging system into a format that is compatible with the destination system element, wherein the data of the imaging system comprises medical images;
transferring the transformed data of the imaging system to the destination system element according to the transfer path using a healthcare data transfer protocol;
updating the model of the radiation oncology system to reflect a real-time state of transfer
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing interactions between people
(including following rules or instructions), which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. That is, other than reciting, “a non-transitory memory of a computing device”, “by a processor of a computing device,”, “from an imaging system of the radiation oncology system to a destination system element of the radiation oncology system”, “by the processor of the computing device,”, “, wherein the healthcare data transfer protocol comprises at least one of a unified procedure setup (UPS-RS), DICOM®-UPS, and/or a modality worklist adaptor”, “in the non-transitory memory” to perform these functions, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed using a computer as a tool to manage interactions between people. For example, the claim encompasses a user following instructions to define a model of a radiation oncology system, a user following instructions to initiate an information request, a user following instructions to select a transfer path, a user following instructions to transform the data, a user following instructions to transfer the transformed data through the selected transfer path, and a user following instructions to update the model. These steps could be accomplished by a person following instructions to direct and route information from one source to another, and therefore encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claim 1: Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining
elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform
the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 1, directly or indirectly, recites the following generic computer components configured to implement the abstract idea: “a non-transitory memory of a computing device”, “by a processor of a computing device,”, “by the processor of the computing device,”, “in the non-transitory memory”. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, the claim recites “storing an updated model in the non-transitory memory” at a high degree of generality, amount no more than storing and retrieving information in memory. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, the claims recite “from an imaging system of the radiation oncology system to a destination system element of the radiation oncology system”, “, wherein the healthcare data transfer protocol comprises at least one of a unified procedure setup (UPS-RS), DICOM®-UPS, and/or a modality worklist adaptor” at a high degree of generality, amount no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technical environment. The recitation is also similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f), merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1: Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer configured to perform above identified functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Alice 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)
Insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Additionally, generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (See MPEP 2016.05(h) and Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USP12d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-9 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea, claims 2-4 further define the transfer path. Similarly, claim 5 further defines the format. Similarly, claims 6-7 further define sending the query. Finally, claims 8-9 further define the storing of the updated model. Therefore, these claims recite limitations that fall into the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 2-9 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consisted with the additional elements in independent claim 1 (such as claims 8-9 recite additional limitations that amount to generic computer components.) 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 are not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites the same functions as claim 1, but in system form.
Claim 10 recites the addition of “an imaging system; a destination system; and a computing device having a processor and machine-readable instructions stored in non-transitory memory and executable by the processor to:”, which amounts to no more than general purpose computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Alice 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)
Claims 11-15 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea, claims 11-12, 15 further define the imaging system and destination system. Similarly, claims 13-14 further define the data format. Therefore, these claims recite limitations that fall into the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 11-15 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consisted with the additional elements in independent claim 1 (such as claims 11-12 recite additional limitations that amount to generic computer components.) 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 are not patent eligible.
Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not
amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16: Step 2A Prong One
Claim 16 recite(s)
defining, a model of a radiation oncology system;
identifying one or more elements of the radiation oncology system configured to perform each step of the ordered series of steps of the patient treatment workflow, wherein identifying one or more elements of the radiation oncology system comprises initiating a C-MOVE request comprising inducing a source workflow step to send a query to a destination system element of the radiation oncology system to determine a processing capability and an available storage space of the destination system element;
selecting, a data transfer path through elements of the radiation oncology system using the model of the radiation oncology system, where the data transfer path includes an ordered series of data transmissions among elements of the radiation oncology system that correspond to the ordered series of steps of the patient treatment workflow, wherein the data transfer path is from the imaging system to the destination system element;
transforming data of the imaging system into a format that is compatible with the destination system element, wherein the data of the imaging system comprises medical images; and
automatically directing data transmission among elements of the radiation oncology system, according to the ordered series of steps of the patient treatment workflow and the data transfer path
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the recitation of generic computer components, encompass concepts managing interactions between people (including following rules or instructions), which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. That is, other than reciting, “by a processor of a computing device,”, “by a processor of the computing device,”, “from an imaging system of the radiation oncology system”, “wherein the data transmission comprises transferring the transformed data of the imaging system to the destination system element according to the data transfer path using a healthcare data transfer protocol, and wherein the healthcare data transfer protocol comprises on of UPS-RS, DICOM-UPS, and a modality worklist adaptor” to perform these functions, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed using a computer as a tool to manage interactions between people. For example, the claim encompasses a user following instructions to define a model of a radiation oncology system, a user following instructions to identify one or more elements of the radiation oncology system, a user following instructions to select a data transfer path, a user following instructions to transform the data, and a user following instructions to transfer the transformed data through the selected transfer path. These steps could be accomplished by a person following instructions to direct and route information from one source to another, and therefore encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claim 16: Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining
elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform
the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 16, directly or indirectly, recites the following generic computer components configured to implement the abstract idea: “by a processor of a computing device,”, “by a processor of the computing device,”. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, the claim recites “receiving a patient treatment workflow including an ordered series of steps directed to monitor a patient, provide treatment to the patient, and/or plan treatment for the patient;” at a high degree of generality, amount no more than storing and retrieving information in memory. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, the claim recites “from an imaging system of the radiation oncology system to a destination system element of the radiation oncology system”, “automatically directing data transmission”, “wherein the data transmission comprises transferring the transformed data of the imaging system to the destination system element according to the data transfer path using a healthcare data transfer protocol, and wherein the healthcare data transfer protocol comprises on of UPS-RS, DICOM-UPS, and a modality worklist adaptor” at a high degree of generality, amount no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technical environment. The recitation is also similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f), merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claim 16: Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer configured to perform above identified functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Alice 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)
Insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Additionally, generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (See MPEP 2016.05(h) and Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USP12d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 17-20 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea, claims 17-18 further define the model and the elements. Similarly, claim 19 further defines the transfer path. Finally, claim 20 describes a selected element. Therefore, these claims recite limitations that fall into the Mental Process grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 17-20 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consisted with the additional elements in independent claim 16 (such as claims 17-18 recite additional limitations that amount to insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity.) 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 are not patent eligible.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tochilnik (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0287093) in view of Fletcher et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0302300).
As per independent claim 1, Tochilnik discloses a method for choosing a data transfer path, comprising:
initiating a C-MOVE request (See [0103]-[0106]: The destination of the C-MOVE request is selectable using the C-MOVE dent AE field, which the Examiner is interpreting the C-MOVE request to encompass initiating a C-MOVE request) comprising inducing a source workflow step to send a query from an imaging system of the radiation oncology system to a destination system element of the radiation oncology system to determine a processing capability and an available storage space of the destination system element (See [0093]-[0094], [0103]-[0106]: A radiological data routing sub-engine 400 (FIG. 4) uses standard protocols (HL7, DICOM, XML and SNMP) to route radiological data 2000 (Radiological Data1), 2010 (Radiological Data2) and 2020 (Radiological DataN) (patient studies, for example) from disparate radiology systems (such as RIS server 130, HIS server 140, and EMR server 150) to provide for migration to a common standard, which the Examiner is interpreting a common standard to encompass a source workflow step, and the Examiner is interpreting the C-MOVE request to encompass to send a query, and to determine a processing capability and an available storage space of the destination system element as Applicant’s Specification recites the operation of a C-MOVE request as “The C-MOVE request thus queries elements of the radiation oncology system to identify one or more elements that are configured to perform a step requested by the patient treatment workflow and have a desired processing capability and storage capability.” (See Applicant’s Specification in [0051]));
selecting, by the processor of the computing device (See [0019]-[0020]: “processor in order to transform, route, archive and/or pull patient radiological data”), a transfer path from the imaging system to the destination system element based on the model of the radiation oncology system and the processing capability of the destination system element (See Fig. 20 and [0093]-[0098]: Receiving user-configured routing conditions, and processing the user-configured routing conditions in a processor to provide for standardized routing of patient radiological data, which the Examiner is interpreting user-configured routing conditions to selecting a transfer path as a Priority field provides for user-configurable prioritization of the routing);
transforming data of the imaging system into a format that is compatible with the destination system element (See Fig. 9 and [0085]-[0087], [0094], [0117]: The user-configurable radiological data transformation, routing and archiving engine also provides a versatile tool that provides a user with the means for transforming, routing, archiving, pulling, encrypting and compressing patient radiological data, creating worklists and managing workflow, which the Examiner is interpreting the transforming of the patient radiological data to encompass transforming data of the imaging system into a format that is compatible with the destination system element as the user-configured routing conditions in a processor to provide for standardized routing of patient radiological data), wherein the data of the imaging system comprises medical images (See [0008]: Compliance with changes in DICOM standards may require radiological images and corresponding data to be upgraded to a new standard as well use of standard protocol (e.g., HL7, DICOM, XDS-I, XML SNMP, DICOMWEB, QIDO-RS, WADO-RS, STOW-RS, FHIR and/or other protocols), which the Examiner is interpreting radiological images to encompass medical images);
transferring the transformed data of the imaging system to the destination system element according to the transfer path using a healthcare data transfer protocol (See [0084], [0093]-[0095], [0104]: A radiological data transformation sub-engine uses standard protocols to integrate radiological data and across disparate radiology systems to provide a universal worklist, a user-configurable filter conditions and transformation rules provide for transformation of the radiological data (also referred to as tag morphing) for integration into the universal worklist, which the Examiner is interpreting a radiological data transformation sub-engine uses standard protocols to integrate radiological data to encompass transferring the transformed data of the imaging system to the destination system element according to the transfer path as the Destination Field can be selected), wherein the healthcare data transfer protocol comprises at least one of a unified procedure setup (UPS-RS), DICOM®-UPS, and/or a modality worklist adaptor (See [0008], [0093]: A radiological data routing sub-engine 400 (FIG. 4) uses standard protocols (HL7, DICOM, XML and SNMP) to route radiological data 2000 (Radiological Data1), 2010 (Radiological Data2) and 2020 (Radiological DataN) (patient studies, for example) from disparate radiology systems (such as RIS server 130, HIS server 140, and EMR server 150) to provide for migration to a common standard, which the Examiner is interpreting the standard protocols to encompass the healthcare data transfer protocol comprises at least one of a unified procedure setup (UPS-RS), DICOM®-UPS.)
While Tochilnik teaches the method as described above, Tochilnik may not explicitly teach defining, by a processor of a computing device, a model of a radiation oncology system, the model including elements of the radiation oncology system as nodes, and relationships therebetween as edges;
storing the model in a non-transitory memory of a computing device;
updating the model of the radiation oncology system to reflect a real-time state of transfer; and
storing the updated model of the radiation oncology system in the non- transitory memory.
Fletcher teaches a method for defining, by a processor of a computing device (See [044]: The computing machine 2000 may include various internal or attached components such as a processor 2010, system bus 2020, system memory 2030, storage media 2040, input/output interface 2060, and a network interface 2070 for communicating with a network 2080), a model of a radiation oncology system, the model including elements of the radiation oncology system as nodes, and relationships therebetween as edges (See [0014]-[0015], [0030]: The graph database can store information in a graph structure where nodes are interconnected by edges, the nodes generally represent entities or things such as individuals, departments, or equipment, edges generally connect nodes representing the relationship between them, each node may be associated with one or more properties, which may contain information pertinent to that respective node, and additional facts and rules may relate to radiology);
storing the model in a non-transitory memory of a computing device (See [0014]-[0015]: The graph database can provide the working memory of the rule implementation system, this working memory can store information comprising the current state or knowledge of the rule implementation system, which the Examiner is interpreting the working memory to encompass a non-transitory memory of a computing device);
updating the model of the radiation oncology system to reflect a real-time state of transfer (See [0023]-[0025]: The consequent results can update the knowledge represented by the rule-fact graph by asserting or retracting information, and the queries can pattern-match facts against the encoded rules determining which of the rules to apply, which the Examiner is interpreting the knowledge represented by the rule-fact graph to encompass updating the model, and interpreting the condition portion of each rule may be tested against the current state of the working memory by pattern matching against the rule-fact graph to encompass reflect a real-time state of transfer when combined with Tochilnik); and
storing the updated model of the radiation oncology system in the non- transitory memory (See [0034]-[0035]: The rule implementation system can provide a graph database for storing rules and facts, which the Examiner is interpreting a graph database to encompass the non-transitory memory, and the rules and facts to encompass an updated model.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the method of Tochilnik to include defining, by a processor of a computing device, a model of a radiation oncology system, the model including elements of the radiation oncology system as nodes, and relationships therebetween as edges; storing the model in a non-transitory memory of a computing device; updating the model of the radiation oncology system to reflect a real-time state of transfer; and storing an updated model in the non-transitory memory as taught by Fletcher. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Tochilnik with Fletcher with the motivation of providing rule engine technology that can safely and efficiently supports very large, unstructured datasets that may frequently change in real time (See Background of Fletcher in Paragraph [0003]).
Claim(s) 10 mirrors claim 1 only within (a) different statutory category/categories, and is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
The addition of “a computing device having a processor and machine-readable instructions stored in non-transitory memory and executable by the processor to:” is encompassed by Tochilnik in Paragraphs [0014]-[0016].
As per claim 5, Tochilnik/Fletcher discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Tochilnik further teaches wherein the format is digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM®) (See [0084]: A radiological data transformation sub-engine 300 (FIG. 3) uses standard protocols (HL7, DICOM, XML and SNMP) to integrate radiological data.)
As per claim 6, Tochilnik/Fletcher discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Tochilnik further teaches further comprising sending the query to a second imaging system in response to receiving the data from the first imaging system (See Fig. 4, [0093]: A radiological data routing sub-engine 400 (FIG. 4) uses standard protocols (HL7, DICOM, XML and SNMP) to route radiological data 2000 (Radiological Data1), 2010 (Radiological Data2) and 2020 (Radiological DataN) (patient studies, for example) from disparate radiology systems (such as RIS server 130, HIS server 140, and EMR server 150) to provide for migration to a common standard, which the Examiner is interpreting Radiological Data1 to encompass the first imaging system, and interpreting Radiological Data2 to encompass a second imaging system.)
As per claim 7, Tochilnik/Fletcher discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Tochilnik further teaches the query includes a request for information about a current processing load of the destination system element, a number and/or size of data in a queue to be processed by the destination system element, and an estimated time until the queried element is available to process the received data (See [0093]-[0094], [0103]-[0106]: A radiological data routing sub-engine 400 (FIG. 4) uses standard protocols (HL7, DICOM, XML and SNMP) to route radiological data 2000 (Radiological Data1), 2010 (Radiological Data2) and 2020 (Radiological DataN) (patient studies, for example) from disparate radiology systems (such as RIS server 130, HIS server 140, and EMR server 150) to provide for migration to a common standard, which the Examiner is interpreting C-MOVE request to encompass the claimed portion as Applicant’s Specification recites the operation of a C-MOVE request as “The C-MOVE request thus queries elements of the radiation oncology system to identify one or more elements that are configured to perform a step requested by the patient treatment workflow and have a desired processing capability and storage capability.” (See Applicant’s Specification in [0051])).)
As per claim 8, Tochilnik/Fletcher discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Tochilnik may not explicitly teach wherein storing the updated model comprises replacing the model in the non-transitory memory.
Fletcher teaches a method wherein storing the updated model comprises replacing the model in the non-transitory memory (See [0023]: The working memory can store information comprising the current state or knowledge of the rule implementation system, which the Examiner is interpreting the current state or knowledge to encompass replacing the model in the non-transitory memory.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the method of Tochilnik to include storing the updated model comprises replacing the model in the non-transitory memory as taught by Fletcher. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Tochilnik with Fletcher with the motivation of providing rule engine technology that can safely and efficiently supports very large, unstructured datasets that may frequently change in real time (See Background of Fletcher in Paragraph [0003]).
As per claim 9, Tochilnik/Fletcher discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Tochilnik may not explicitly teach wherein storing the updated model comprises updating the model in the non-transitory memory.
Fletcher teaches a method wherein storing the updated model comprises updating the model in the non-transitory memory (See [0034]-[0035]: The rule implementation system can provide a graph database for storing rules and facts, which the Examiner is interpreting a graph database to encompass the non-transitory memory, and the rules and facts to encompass an updated model.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the method of Tochilnik to include storing the updated model comprises updating the model in the non-transitory memory as taught by Fletcher. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Tochilnik with Fletcher with the motivation of providing rule engine technology that can safely and efficiently supports very large, unstructured datasets that may frequently change in real time (See Background of Fletcher in Paragraph [0003]).
As per claim 11, Tochilnik/Fletcher discloses the system of claim 10 as described above. Tochilnik further teaches wherein the imaging system is a computed tomography (CT) system (See [0004]-[0005], [0008]: DICOM structured report increases the efficiency of the distribution of information between various specialties such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound, etc., and Tochilnik is directed to integrating radiological data (patient studies, orders, and reports for example) across disparate radiology systems, which the Examiner is interpreting the radiological data (reports) to encompass acquiring data from a computed tomography (CT) system.)
As per claim 12, Tochilnik/Fletcher discloses the system of claim 10 as described above. Tochilnik further teaches wherein the destination system is a treatment planning system (See [0117]-[0118]: The integration of two workflow tasks from different protocols allows users to obtain as single user-configured workflow task incorporating data from a plurality of medical data capturing systems, which the Examiner is interpreting a web-based software tool to encompass a treatment planning system.)
As per claim 13, Tochilnik/Fletcher discloses the system of claim 10 as described above. Tochilnik further teaches wherein the capability of the destination system includes a data format of the destination system (See [0084]: A radiological data transformation sub-engine 300 (FIG. 3) uses standard protocols (HL7, DICOM, XML and SNMP) to integrate radiological data, which the Examiner is interpreting standard protocols (HL7, DICOM, XML and SNMP) to encompass a data format of the destination system.)
As per claim 14, Tochilnik/Fletcher discloses the system of claim 10 as described above. Tochilnik further teaches wherein the query includes a request for information about a capacity of the destination system element and a request for the format that is compatible with the destination system (See [0093]-[0094], [0103]-[0106]: A radiological data routing sub-engine 400 (FIG. 4) uses standard protocols (HL7, DICOM, XML and SNMP) to route radiological data 2000 (Radiological Data1), 2010 (Radiological Data2) and 2020 (Radiological DataN) (patient studies, for example) from disparate radiology systems (such as RIS server 130, HIS server 140, and EMR server 150) to provide for migration to a common standard, which the Examiner is interpreting a common standard to encompass a source workflow step, and the Examiner is interpreting the C-MOVE request to encompass the query includes a request for information about a capacity of the destination system element and a request for the format that is compatible with the destination system as Applicant’s Specification recites the operation of a C-MOVE request as “The C-MOVE request thus queries elements of the radiation oncology system to identify one or more elements that are configured to perform a step requested by the patient treatment workflow and have a desired processing capability and storage capability.” (See Applicant’s Specification in [0051]).)
As per claim 15, Tochilnik/Fletcher discloses the system of claim 10 as described above. Tochilnik further teaches wherein the destination system is a treatment delivery system (See [0117]-[0118]: The integration of two workflow tasks from different protocols allows users to obtain as single user-configured workflow task incorporating data from a plurality of medical data capturing systems, which the Examiner is interpreting a web-based software tool to encompass a treatment delivery system.)
As per independent claim 16, Tochilnik discloses a method, comprising:
receiving a patient treatment workflow including an ordered series of steps directed to monitor a patient, provide treatment to the patient, and/or plan treatment for the patient (See [0107]-[0109]: A computer-implemented method 840 (FIG. 8C) in accordance with the invention includes the steps of providing 842 a graphical user interface to the user, receiving 844 user-configured HL7 workflow events, and processing 846 the user-configured HL7 workflow events in a processor to provide for standardized HL7 workflow, which the Examiner is interpreting the HL7 workflow events to encompass a patient treatment workflow including an ordered series of steps directed to plan treatment for the patient);
identifying one or more elements of the radiation oncology system configured to perform each step of the ordered series of steps of the patient treatment workflow (See [0117]-[0119]: The integration of two workflow tasks from different protocols allows users to obtain as single user-configured workflow task incorporating data from a plurality of medical data capturing systems, which the Examiner is interpreting the workflow tasks to encompass step of the ordered series of step), wherein identifying one or more elements of the radiation oncology system comprises initiating a C-MOVE request (See [0103]-[0106]: The destination of the C-MOVE request is selectable using the C-MOVE dent AE field, which the Examiner is interpreting the C-MOVE request to encompass initiating a C-MOVE request) comprising inducing a source workflow step to send a query from an imaging system of the radiation oncology system to a destination system element of the radiation oncology system to determine a processing capability and an available storage space of the destination system element (See [0093]-[0094], [0103]-[0106]: A radiological data routing sub-engine 400 (FIG. 4) uses standard protocols (HL7, DICOM, XML and SNMP) to route radiological data 2000 (Radiological Data1), 2010 (Radiological Data2) and 2020 (Radiological DataN) (patient studies, for example) from disparate radiology systems (such as RIS server 130, HIS server 140, and EMR server 150) to provide for migration to a common standard, which the Examiner is interpreting a common standard to encompass a source workflow step, and the Examiner is interpreting the C-MOVE request to encompass to send a query, and to determine a processing capability and an available storage space of the destination system element as Applicant’s Specification recites the operation of a C-MOVE request as “The C-MOVE request thus queries elements of the radiation oncology system to identify one or more elements that are configured to perform a step requested by the patient treatment workflow and have a desired processing capability and storage capability.” (See Applicant’s Specification in [0051]));
selecting, by the processor of the computing device (See [0019]-[0020]: “processor in order to transform, route, archive and/or pull patient radiological data”), a data transfer path through elements of the radiation oncology system using the model of the radiation oncology system ((See Fig. 20 and [0093]-[0098]: Receiving user-configured routing conditions, and processing the user-configured routing conditions in a processor to provide for standardized routing of patient radiological data, which the Examiner is interpreting user-configured routing conditions to selecting a transfer path as a Priority field provides for user-configurable prioritization of the routing when combined with Fletcher), where the data transfer path includes an ordered series of data transmissions among elements of the radiation oncology system that correspond to the ordered series of steps of the patient treatment workflow (See [0083], [0093]-[0094]: A radiological data routing sub-engine 400 (FIG. 4) uses standard protocols (HL7, DICOM, XML and SNMP) to route radiological data 2000 (Radiological Data1), 2010 (Radiological Data2) and 2020 (Radiological DataN) (patient studies, for example) from disparate radiology systems (such as RIS server 130, HIS server 140, and EMR server 150) to provide for migration to a common standard, which the Examiner is interpreting a radiological data routing sub-engine to encompass an ordered series of data transmissions among elements of the radiation oncology system that correspond to the ordered series of steps of the patient treatment workflow as the sub-engines 200, 210, 220 and 230 are logical representations of algorithms and associated processes/routines stored in a storage medium or memory 250 as computer instructions/code capable of being processed by a processor), wherein the data transfer path is from the imaging system to the destination system element (See [0089]-[0094]: A radiological data routing sub-engine 400 (FIG. 4) uses standard protocols (HL7, DICOM, XML and SNMP) to route radiological data 2000 (Radiological Data1), 2010 (Radiological Data2) and 2020 (Radiological DataN) (patient studies, for example) from disparate radiology systems (such as RIS server 130, HIS server 140, and EMR server 150) to provide for migration to a common standard, which the Examiner is interpreting the radiology systems to encompass the imaging system, and interpreting the destination field to encompass the destination system element);
transforming data of the imaging system into a format that is compatible with the destination system element (See Fig. 9 and [0085]-[0087], [0094], [0117]: The user-configurable radiological data transformation, routing and archiving engine also provides a versatile tool that provides a user with the means for transforming, routing, archiving, pulling, encrypting and compressing patient radiological data, creating worklists and managing workflow, which the Examiner is interpreting the transforming of the patient radiological data to encompass transforming data of the imaging system into a format that is compatible with the destination system element as the user-configured routing conditions in a processor to provide for standardized routing of patient radiological data), wherein the data of the imaging system comprises medical images (See [0008]: Compliance with changes in DICOM standards may require radiological images and corresponding data to be upgraded to a new standard as well use of standard protocol (e.g., HL7, DICOM, XDS-I, XML SNMP, DICOMWEB, QIDO-RS, WADO-RS, STOW-RS, FHIR and/or other protocols), which the Examiner is interpreting radiological images to encompass medical images); and
automatically directing data transmission among elements of the radiation oncology system, according to the ordered series of steps of the patient treatment workflow and the data transfer path (See [0110], [0116]-[0117]: The user-configurable radiological data transformation, routing and archiving engine also provides a versatile tool that provides a user with the means for transforming, routing, archiving, pulling, encrypting and compressing patient radiological data, creating worklists and managing workflow, which the Examiner is interpreting managing workflow to encompass the patient treatment workflow and the data transfer path, and interpreting the routing to encompass directing data transmission), wherein the data transmission comprises transferring the transformed data of the imaging system to the destination system element according to the data transfer path using a healthcare data transfer protocol (See [0084], [0093]-[0095], [0104]: A radiological data transformation sub-engine uses standard protocols to integrate radiological data and across disparate radiology systems to provide a universal worklist, a user-configurable filter conditions and transformation rules provide for transformation of the radiological data (also referred to as tag morphing) for integration into the universal worklist, which the Examiner is interpreting a radiological data transformation sub-engine uses standard protocols to integrate radiological data to encompass transferring the transformed data of the imaging system to the destination system element according to the transfer path as the Destination Field can be selected), and wherein the healthcare data transfer protocol comprises on of UPS-RS, DICOM-UPS, and a modality worklist adaptor (See [0008], [0093]: A radiological data routing sub-engine 400 (FIG. 4) uses standard protocols (HL7, DICOM, XML and SNMP) to route radiological data 2000 (Radiological Data1), 2010 (Radiological Data2) and 2020 (Radiological DataN) (patient studies, for example) from disparate radiology systems (such as RIS server 130, HIS server 140, and EMR server 150) to provide for migration to a common standard, which the Examiner is interpreting the standard protocols to encompass the healthcare data transfer protocol comprises at least one of a unified procedure setup (UPS-RS), DICOM®-UPS.)
While Tochilnik teaches the method as described above, Tochilnik may not explicitly teach defining, by a processor of a computing device, a model of a radiation oncology system.
Fletcher teaches a method for defining, by a processor of a computing device (See [044]: The computing machine 2000 may include various internal or attached components such as a processor 2010, system bus 2020, system memory 2030, storage media 2040, input/output interface 2060, and a network interface 2070 for communicating with a network 2080), a model of a radiation oncology system (See [0014]-[0015], [0030]: The graph database can store information in a graph structure where nodes are interconnected by edges, the nodes generally represent entities or things such as individuals, departments, or equipment, edges generally connect nodes representing the relationship between them, each node may be associated with one or more properties, which may contain information pertinent to that respective node, and additional facts and rules may relate to radiology.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the method of Tochilnik to include defining, by a processor of a computing device, a model of a radiation oncology system as taught by Fletcher. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Tochilnik with Fletcher with the motivation of providing rule engine technology that can safely and efficiently supports very large, unstructured datasets that may frequently change in real time (See Background of Fletcher in Paragraph [0003]).
As per claim 17, Tochilnik/Fletcher discloses the method of claim 16 as described above. Tochilnik may not explicitly teach wherein defining the model of the radiation oncology system includes identifying communication connections among elements of the radiation oncology system.
Fletcher teaches a method wherein defining the model of the radiation oncology system includes identifying communication connections among elements of the radiation oncology system (See [0012]-[0014]: Rules 150, facts 160, questions 165 or actions 170 associated with the rule implementation system 100 may be communicated directly to or from the rule implementation system, and these communications may also occur in conjunction with one or more networks, which the Examiner is interpreting the rule implementation system may be communicated directly to or from the rule implementation system to encompass identifying communication connections among elements of the radiation oncology system.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the method of Tochilnik to include defining the model of the radiation oncology system includes identifying communication connections among elements of the radiation oncology system as taught by Fletcher. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Tochilnik with Fletcher with the motivation of providing rule engine technology that can safely and efficiently supports very large, unstructured datasets that may frequently change in real time (See Background of Fletcher in Paragraph [0003]).
As per claim 18, Tochilnik/Fletcher describes the method of claim 16 as described above. Tochilnik may not explicitly teach further comprising updating the model of the radiation oncology system to reflect a real-time state of transfer, and storing the updated model of the radiation oncology system in the non-transitory memory, and storing the updated model of the radiation oncology system in the non-transitory memory.
Fletcher teaches a method further comprising updating the model of the radiation oncology system to reflect a real-time state of transfer (See [0023]-[0025]: The consequent results can update the knowledge represented by the rule-fact graph by asserting or retracting information, and the queries can pattern-match facts against the encoded rules determining which of the rules to apply, which the Examiner is interpreting the knowledge represented by the rule-fact graph to encompass updating the model, and interpreting the condition portion of each rule may be tested against the current state of the working memory by pattern matching against the rule-fact graph to encompass reflect a real-time state of transfer when combined with Tochilnik), and storing the updated model of the radiation oncology system in the non-transitory memory (See [0034]-[0035]: The rule implementation system can provide a graph database for storing rules and facts, which the Examiner is interpreting a graph database to encompass the non-transitory memory, and the rules and facts to encompass an updated model.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the method of Tochilnik to include updating the model of the radiation oncology system to reflect a real-time state of transfer, and storing the updated model of the radiation oncology system in the non-transitory memory, and storing the updated model of the radiation oncology system in the non-transitory memory as taught by Fletcher. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Tochilnik with Fletcher with the motivation of providing rule engine technology that can safely and efficiently supports very large, unstructured datasets that may frequently change in real time (See Background of Fletcher in Paragraph [0003]).
Claims 2-4, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tochilnik (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0287093) in view of Fletcher et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0302300) in further view of Zhao et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0208966).
As per claim 2, Tochilnik/Fletcher discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Tochilnik/Fletcher may not explicitly teach wherein selecting the transfer path includes comparing a processing power demand, number of steps, and transfer time among a two or more paths from the imaging system to the destination system element as defined by the model, and selecting the transfer path at least one of a lowest processing power demand, a fewest number of steps, and/or a shortest transfer time.
Zhao teaches a method wherein selecting the transfer path (See [0029]-[0030]: Cloud includes one or more cloud severs to provide image processing services, one or more databases to store images and other medical data, and one or more routers to transfer data to/from other entities, rules may exist which control the transfer of data between the servers in the cluster, which the Examiner is interpreting the rules to encompass selecting the transfer path) includes comparing a processing power demand, number of steps, and transfer time among a two or more paths from the imaging system to the destination system element as defined by the model (See [0039]: Image processing services provided by cloud can be provided based on a variety of licensing models, such as, for example, based on the number of users, case uploads (e.g., number of cases, number of images or volume of image data), case downloads (e.g., number of cases, number of images or volume of image data), number of cases processed and/or viewed, image processing requirements, type of user (e.g., expert, specialty or general user), by clinical trial or by research study, type of case, bandwidth requirements, processing power/speed requirements, priority to processing power/speed (e.g., system in ER may pay for higher priority), reimbursement or billing code (e.g., user may only pay to perform certain procedures that are reimbursed by insurance), time using software (e.g., years, months, weeks, days, hours, even minutes), time of day using software, number of concurrent users, number of sessions, or any combination thereof, which the Examiner is interpreting the variety of licensing models to encompass a processing power demand, number of steps, and transfer time), and selecting the transfer path at least one of a lowest processing power demand, a fewest number of steps, and/or a shortest transfer time (See [0039]-[0040]: Image processing services provided by cloud can be provided based on a variety of licensing models, which the Examiner is interpreting using one or more of the licensing models to encompass selecting the transfer path at least one of a lowest processing power demand, a fewest number of steps, and/or a shortest transfer time.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the method of Tochilnik/Fletcher to include selecting the transfer path includes comparing a processing power demand, number of steps, and transfer time among a two or more paths from the imaging system to the destination system element as defined by the model, and selecting the transfer path at least one of a lowest processing power demand, a fewest number of steps, and/or a shortest transfer time as taught by Zhao. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Tochilnik/Fletcher with Zhao with the motivation of improving efficiency by reducing steps involving users (See Detailed Description of Zhao in Paragraph [0068]).
As per claim 3, Tochilnik/Fletcher discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Tochilnik/Fletcher may not explicitly teach further comprising comparing an efficiency of the transfer path to the updated model of the radiation oncology system and selecting a second transfer path from the imaging system to the destination system element based on the updated model when the second transfer path is more efficient than the transfer path.
Zhao teaches a method further comprising comparing an efficiency of the transfer path to the updated model of the radiation oncology system (See [0039]: Image processing services provided by cloud can be provided based on a variety of licensing models, such as, for example, based on the number of users, case uploads (e.g., number of cases, number of images or volume of image data), case downloads (e.g., number of cases, number of images or volume of image data), number of cases processed and/or viewed, image processing requirements, type of user (e.g., expert, specialty or general user), by clinical trial or by research study, type of case, bandwidth requirements, processing power/speed requirements, priority to processing power/speed (e.g., system in ER may pay for higher priority), reimbursement or billing code (e.g., user may only pay to perform certain procedures that are reimbursed by insurance), time using software (e.g., years, months, weeks, days, hours, even minutes), time of day using software, number of concurrent users, number of sessions, or any combination thereof, which the Examiner is interpreting the variety of licensing models to encompass comparing an efficiency of the transfer path) and selecting a second transfer path from imaging system to the destination system element based on the updated model when the second transfer path is more efficient than the transfer path (See [0029]-[0030], [0039]: Cloud includes one or more cloud severs to provide image processing services, one or more databases to store images and other medical data, and one or more routers to transfer data to/from other entities, rules may exist which control the transfer of data between the servers in the cluster, which the Examiner is interpreting the rules to encompass selecting a transfer path when combined with Fletcher's disclosure of an updated knowledge represented by the rule-fact graph ([0023]-[0025]).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the method of Tochilnik/Fletcher to include comparing an efficiency of the transfer path to the updated model of the radiation oncology system and selecting a second transfer path from the imaging system to the destination system element based on the updated model when the second transfer path is more efficient than the transfer path as taught by Zhao. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Tochilnik/Fletcher with Zhao with the motivation of improving efficiency by reducing steps involving users (See Detailed Description of Zhao in Paragraph [0068]).
As per claim 4, Tochilnik/Fletcher discloses the method of claim 1 and Tochilnik/Fletcher/Zhao discloses the method of claim 3 as described above. Tochilnik further teaches further comprising transferring transformed data to the destination system element according to the second transfer path (See [0084], [0093]-[0095], [0104]: A radiological data transformation sub-engine uses standard protocols to integrate radiological data and across disparate radiology systems to provide a universal worklist, a user-configurable filter conditions and transformation rules provide for transformation of the radiological data (also referred to as tag morphing) for integration into the universal worklist, which the Examiner is interpreting a radiological data transformation sub-engine uses standard protocols to integrate radiological data to encompass transferring transformed data to the destination system element according to the second transfer path.)
As per claim 19, Tochilnik/Fletcher discloses the method of claim 16 as described above. Tochilnik/Fletcher may not explicitly teach wherein selecting the data transfer path includes comparing a processing capability, a data format, and a storage capability of one or more elements of the radiation oncology system that are configured to execute a same step of the patient treatment workflow, and selecting an element of the one or more elements that has a desired processing capability, data format, and/or storage capability.
Zhao teaches a method wherein selecting the data transfer path includes comparing a processing capability, a data format, and a storage capability of one or more elements of the radiation oncology system that are configured to execute a same step of the patient treatment workflow (See [0039]: Image processing services provided by cloud can be provided based on a variety of licensing models, such as, for example, based on the number of users, case uploads (e.g., number of cases, number of images or volume of image data), case downloads (e.g., number of cases, number of images or volume of image data), number of cases processed and/or viewed, image processing requirements, type of user (e.g., expert, specialty or general user), by clinical trial or by research study, type of case, bandwidth requirements, processing power/speed requirements, priority to processing power/speed (e.g., system in ER may pay for higher priority), reimbursement or billing code (e.g., user may only pay to perform certain procedures that are reimbursed by insurance), time using software (e.g., years, months, weeks, days, hours, even minutes), time of day using software, number of concurrent users, number of sessions, or any combination thereof, which the Examiner is interpreting selecting the data transfer path includes comparing a processing capability, a data format, and a storage capability when combined with Tochilnik’s disclosure of workflows ([0110], [0116]-[0117])), and selecting an element of the one or more elements that has a desired processing capability, data format, and/or storage capability (See [0113]: A procedural workflow for selecting input and output function and regions of interest, which the Examiner is interpreting input function to encompass data format.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the method of Tochilnik/Fletcher to include selecting the data transfer path includes comparing a processing capability, a data format, and a storage capability of one or more elements of the radiation oncology system that are configured to execute a same step of the patient treatment workflow, and selecting an element of the one or more elements that has a desired processing capability, data format, and/or storage capability as taught by Zhao. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Tochilnik/Fletcher with Zhao with the motivation of improving efficiency by reducing steps involving users (See Detailed Description of Zhao in Paragraph [0068]).
As per claim 20, Tochilnik/Fletcher discloses the method of claim 16 and Tochilnik/Fletcher discloses the method of claim 19 as described above. Tochilnik/Fletcher may not explicitly teach wherein a selected element of the one or more elements with has a relatively highest processing capability and/or storage capability of the one or more elements.
Zhao teaches a method wherein a selected element of the one or more elements with has a relatively highest processing capability and/or storage capability of the one or more elements (See [0039]-[0040]: Image processing services provided by cloud can be provided based on a variety of licensing models, which the Examiner is interpreting using one or more of the licensing models to encompass s a selected element of the one or more elements with has a relatively highest processing capability and/or storage capability of the one or more elements.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the method of Tochilnik/Fletcher to include a selected element of the one or more elements with has a relatively highest processing capability and/or storage capability of the one or more elements as taught by Zhao. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Tochilnik/Fletcher with Zhao with the motivation of improving efficiency by reducing steps involving users (See Detailed Description of Zhao in Paragraph [0068]).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks filed on November 11, 2025, the Applicant argues that the newly amended and/or added claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s). The Examiner does not acknowledge that the newly added and/or amended claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s).
The Applicant argues that:
(1) the Office asserts that claim 1 recites a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. In particular, the Office asserts that "other than reciting, 'a non-transitory memory of a computing device' to perform these functions, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process." See Office action, page 4. However, as amended herein, claim 1 recites multiple specialized components that perform specialized technical operations. For instance, amended claim 1 recites "initiating a C-MOVE request comprising inducing a source workflow step to send a query from an imaging system of the radiation oncology system to a destination system element of the radiation oncology system to determine a processing capability and an available storage space of the destination system element." C-MOVE is a specific DICOM operation used in medical imaging systems that cannot be performed mentally and requires specific technical implementation in healthcare IT systems. See Applicant's published application, paragraph [0051]. The claimed method also requires "transforming data of the imaging system into a format that is compatible with the destination system element, wherein the data of the imaging system comprises medical images," which specifies both the type of data (medical images-complex digital data structures) and the technical operation of format transformation for compatibility among heterogeneous medical devices. Additionally, amended claim 1 recites "transferring the transformed data of the imaging system to the destination system element according to the transfer path using a healthcare data transfer protocol, wherein the healthcare data transfer protocol comprises at least one of a unified procedure setup (UPS-RS), DICOM®-UPS, and/or a modality worklist adaptor," which specifies particular technical protocols used in healthcare systems rather than generic data transfer methods. The claim further includes "updating the model of the radiation oncology system to reflect a real-time state of transfer" and "storing the updated model of the radiation oncology system in the non-transitory memory," which provide real-time adaptive routing capabilities that improve network efficiency and resource utilization. By specifying the particular, non-generic components and particularly non-generic functions, amended claim 1 imposes meaningful limits on practicing any alleged abstract idea such that it is integrated into a practical application. In view of the above, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection under 35 U.S.C.101 of claim 1 and all claims depending therefrom be withdrawn. Turning to claims 10 and 16, claims 10 and 16 are amended herein in a similar manner as claim 1. Thus, for at least the reasons presented above with respect to amended claim 1, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 of claims 10 and 16, and all claims depending therefrom, be withdrawn;
(2) Applicant has amended claim 1 as recited above. Through the approach of amended claim 1, the inventors of the subject application determined that certain advantages are achieved. Known approaches for routing medical imaging data in radiation oncology systems rely on manual user input to direct data transfers among heterogeneous devices with different capabilities, storage capacities, data formats, and processing abilities. This manual approach is time-consuming and inefficient, and may result in failed transfers due to incompatible formats or insufficient capacity. See Applicant's published application, paragraph [0018]. However, the automated routing approach of amended claim 1 improves network efficiency through model-based routing that reduces network congestion by selecting optimal transfer paths based on real-time processing capability and storage availability. The claimed method reduces transfer failures by querying device capabilities before initiating data transfers, thereby avoiding transfers to systems with insufficient capacity or incompatible formats. See Applicant's published application, paragraphs [0041], [0042], and [0048]-[0052]. Additional benefits resulting from the approach of amended claim 1 include real-time adaptability through continuous model updates that reflect current system states, enabling dynamic routing adjustments, automated interoperability among heterogeneous medical devices through specific healthcare data transfer protocols and format transformation, and increased processing efficiency by automatically selecting paths with optimal processing capabilities and storage availability;
(3) even if considered in combination, none of the cited references teach or suggest each of the limitations of amended claim 1. For instance, none of the cited references, even if considered in combination, disclose or suggest "selecting, by the processor of the computing device, a transfer path from the imaging system to the destination system element based on the model of the radiation oncology system and the processing capability of the destination system element." This is a fundamentally different approach from Tochilnik's user-configured routing conditions. Tochilnik describes a system where routing decisions are based on user-configured routing conditions that are predetermined by users. As disclosed in Tochilnik at paragraphs [0093]-[0098] and Figure 20, the system receives user-configured routing conditions and processes these conditions to provide standardized routing of patient radiological data. The routing conditions include user-selectable operands such as StudyDate, StudyTime, AccessionNumber, and Modality, with user-configurable priority fields. These are static, user-defined rules that are configured in advance by users through a graphical user interface. The routing decisions are made based on matching data attributes against these predetermined user-configured conditions, not based on dynamically querying and assessing the current processing capability and storage availability of destination systems. In contrast, amended claim 1 recites a dynamic, model-based approach where the system initiates C-MOVE requests to query destination system elements in real-time to determine their current processing capability and available storage space, and then selects a transfer path based on this real-time information combined with the model of the radiation oncology system. This approach allows the system to make intelligent routing decisions based on the current state of the radiation oncology system, not merely on predetermined user-configured rules. The claimed method adapts to changing conditions in the radiation oncology system by continuously updating the model to reflect real-time states and selecting paths based on current processing capabilities, whereas Tochilnik' s approach applies static user-configured rules regardless of the current state of destination systems. The remaining cited references fail to cure the deficiencies of Tochilnik;
(4) none of the cited references teach or suggest "transferring the transformed data of the imaging system to the destination system element according to the transfer path using a healthcare data transfer protocol, wherein the healthcare data transfer protocol comprises at least one of a unified procedure setup (UPS-RS), DICOM®-UPS, and/or a modality worklist adaptor." With respect to this feature, the Office cites to paragraphs [0097], [0098], and [0117] of Tochilnik, stating that "the Examiner is interpreting selecting the operand of Modality to encompass transferred using a modality worklist adaptor." See Office action, page 15. However, the cited portions of Tochilnik describe user-selectable operands including DICOM tags such as "StudyDate," "StudyTime," "AccessionNumber," and "Modality," which are data fields used in routing conditions, not data transfer protocols. A DICOM tag field labeled "Modality" is not the same as a "modality worklist adaptor" used as a data transfer protocol. These are fundamentally different concepts-a DICOM tag is a data element identifier, while a modality worklist adaptor is a protocol mechanism for managing and transferring workflow data. The Office has provided no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand selecting a "Modality" DICOM tag to encompass using a modality worklist adaptor as a transfer protocol. Moreover, Tochilnik does not teach or suggest UPS-RS or DICOM-UPS at all. These are specific DICOM protocols for unified procedure step management that are not mentioned anywhere in Tochilnik. The Office has not established that these protocols would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on Tochilnik' s disclosure of generic DICOM operations. The remaining cited references fail to cure the deficiencies of Tochilnik. For at least the reasons above, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claim 1 and 1 all claims depending therefrom be withdrawn. Applicant submits that amended independent claims 10 and 16 recite features that are substantially similar to the features recited by amended claim 1, and should thus be allowed for at least the same reasons that pertain to claim 1, as discussed above. Thus, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 10 and 16, and all claims depending therefrom, be withdrawn.
In response to argument (1), the Examiner does find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner acknowledges that the newly amended claims are not directed to a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. In light of the newly amended claims, the Examiner has rejected the newly amended claims as directed to a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The Examiner maintains that the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity. The Examiner maintains that the amended claims are similar to “iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48” (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)) which the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The “, wherein the healthcare data transfer protocol comprises at least one of a unified procedure setup (UPS-RS), DICOM®-UPS, and/or a modality worklist adaptor” is recited at a high degree of generality, amount no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technical environment. The recitation is also similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f), merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. The Examiner maintains that the limitations of “updating the model of the radiation oncology system to reflect a real-time state of transfer" is a part of the abstract idea, and "storing the updated model of the radiation oncology system in the non-transitory memory," amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (2), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that the disclosure of Tochilnik et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0287093) of the C-MOVE request encompasses the “inducing a source workflow step to send a query from an imaging system of the radiation oncology system to a destination system element of the radiation oncology system to determine a processing capability and an available storage space of the destination system element” as the Applicant’s Specification describes the C-MOVE request as “The C-MOVE request thus queries elements of the radiation oncology system to identify one or more elements that are configured to perform a step requested by the patient treatment workflow and have a desired processing capability and storage capability.” (See Applicant’s Specification in [0051])). The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (3), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that the combination of Tochilnik/Fletcher describes “selecting, by the processor of the computing device, a transfer path from the imaging system to the destination system element based on the model of the radiation oncology system and the processing capability of the destination system element” in Tochilnik in Paragraphs [0019]-[0020], and [0093]-[0098]. The function of the C-MOVE operation is to allow an application entity to instruct another application entity to transfer stored SOP Instances to another application entity using the C-STORE operation. The Examiner does not acknowledge that the Applicant’s utilization of the C-MOVE operation differentiates from the function of the C-MOVE operation. The Examiner maintains that the combination of Tochilnik/Fletcher teaches the newly amended independent claims as described above. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (4), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that the amended claimed portion of "transferring the transformed data of the imaging system to the destination system element according to the transfer path using a healthcare data transfer protocol, wherein the healthcare data transfer protocol comprises at least one of a unified procedure setup (UPS-RS), DICOM®-UPS, and/or a modality worklist adaptor" is taught by Tochilnik in Paragraphs [0008], [0084], [0093]-[0095], [0104] as Paragraph [0008] describes “he present disclosure is directed towards a user-configurable radiological data transformation, routing, and archiving engine using standard protocols (HL7, DICOM, XDS-I, XML SNMP, DICOMWEB, QIDO-RS, WADO-RS, STOW-RS, FHIR and/or other protocols) to integrate radiological data (patient studies, orders, and reports for example) across disparate radiology systems (e.g., RIS, HIS, EMR, and/or other radiological systems) to provide a universal worklist and/or standardized data”, which the Examiner has interpreted the standard protocols to encompass (UPS-RS), DICOM®-UPS, and/or a modality worklist adaptor. The Examiner maintains that the newly amended independent claims 1, 10, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s), and each of the dependent claims have been rejected initially and due to their dependency on independent claims 1, 10, 16. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand.
Conclusion
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 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 Bennett S Erickson whose telephone number is (571)270-3690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773. 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.
/Bennett Stephen Erickson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683