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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 14, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed on May 14, 2026, the following has occurred: claim(s) 1, 10-11, 16, 18 have been amended. Now, claim(s) 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “…stored SOP instances…” in p. 2, ll. 17. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “…stored service-object pair (SOP) instances…”
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 current processing capability and a current available storage space of the destination system element at a time of the C-MOVE request;
selecting, a transfer path from the imaging system to the destination system element based on the model of the radiation oncology system and the current processing capability of the destination system element as dynamically determined by the C-MOVE request;
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 in real-time to reflect a current state of transfer, wherein the model is continuously updated in response to receiving updated information about each queried element
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 C-MOVE request is a DICOM® operation that induces the source workflow step to transfer stored SOP instances to the destination system element using a C-STORE operation”, “, 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”, “updating the model of the radiation oncology system in real-time to reflect a current state of transfer, wherein the model is continuously updated in response to receiving updated information about each queried element” 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 C-MOVE request is a DICOM® operation that induces the source workflow step to transfer stored SOP instances to the destination system element using a C-STORE operation”, “, 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 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 current processing capability and a current available storage space of the destination system element at a time of the C-MOVE request;
selecting, a data transfer path from the imaging system to the destination system element using the model of the radiation oncology system and the current processing capability of the destination system element as dynamically determined by the C-MOVE request, 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;
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;
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; and
updating the model of the radiation oncology system in real time to reflect a current state of transfer, wherein the model is continuously updated in response to receiving updating information about each queried element
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”, “and wherein the C-MOVE request is a DICOM® operation that induces the source workflow step to transfer stored SOP instances to the destination system element using a C-STORE operation”, “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, a user following instructions to transfer the transformed data through the selected transfer path, and a user following instructions to update the model of the radiation oncology system. 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;”, “updating the model of the radiation oncology system in real time to reflect a current state of transfer, wherein the model is continuously updated in response to receiving updating information about each queried element” 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”, “and wherein the C-MOVE request is a DICOM® operation that induces the source workflow step to transfer stored SOP instances to the destination system element using a C-STORE operation”, “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.
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 current processing capability and a current available storage space of the destination system element at a time of the C-MOVE request (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 current processing capability and a current available storage space of the destination system element at a time of the C-MOVE request 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]), and “The C-MOVE operation allows an application entity to instruct another application entity to transfer stored SOP Instances to another application entity using the C-STORE operation.” (See https://dicom.nema.org/medical/dicom/current/output/chtml/part04/sect_c.4.2.html)), wherein the C-MOVE request is a DICOM® operation that induces the source workflow step to transfer stored service-object pair (SOP) instances to the destination system element using a C-STORE operation (See Fig. 27 and [0103]-[0105]: Source device and Local device fields 2730 and 2740 respectively are user-configurable to include the application entity title and other information of respective DICOM devices or programs, which the Examiner is interpreting the type of request being a C-MOVE request to encompass the claimed portion as the operation of C-MOVE is to “instruct another application entity to transfer stored SOP Instances to another application entity using the C-STORE operation” (See https://dicom.nema.org/medical/dicom/current/output/chtml/part04/sect_c.4.2.html));
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 current processing capability of the destination system element dynamically determined by the C-MOVE request (See Fig. 20 and [0093]-[0098], [0103]-[0105]: 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, and interpreting the Prior fetch limit field provides the user with a means of selecting the limit of priors fetched to encompass dynamically determined by the C-MOVE request);
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 in real-time to reflect a current state of transfer, wherein the model is continuously updated in response to receiving updated information about each queried element; 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 [0044]: 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 in real-time to reflect a current 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), wherein the model is continuously updated in response to receiving updated information about each queried element (See [0024]: The consequent results can update the knowledge represented by the rule-fact graph by asserting or retracting information, and rule interpretation can execute forward chaining when updated information affects other rules implied within the rule-fact graph, which the Examiner is interpreting consequent results to encompass receiving updated information about each queried element); 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 in real-time to reflect a current state of transfer, wherein the model is continuously updated in response to receiving updated information about each queried element; 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]).
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 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 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 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 current processing capability and a current available storage space of the destination system element at a time of the C-MOVE request (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 current processing capability and a current available storage space of the destination system element at a time of the C-MOVE request 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]), and “The C-MOVE operation allows an application entity to instruct another application entity to transfer stored SOP Instances to another application entity using the C-STORE operation.” (See https://dicom.nema.org/medical/dicom/current/output/chtml/part04/sect_c.4.2.html)), wherein the C-MOVE request is a DICOM® operation that induces the source workflow step to transfer stored SOP instances to the destination system element using a C-STORE operation (See Fig. 27 and [0103]-[0105]: Source device and Local device fields 2730 and 2740 respectively are user-configurable to include the application entity title and other information of respective DICOM devices or programs, which the Examiner is interpreting the type of request being a C-MOVE request to encompass the claimed portion as the operation of C-MOVE is to “instruct another application entity to transfer stored SOP Instances to another application entity using the C-STORE operation” (See https://dicom.nema.org/medical/dicom/current/output/chtml/part04/sect_c.4.2.html));
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 from the imaging system to the destination system element using the model of the radiation oncology system and the current processing capability of the destination system element dynamically determined by the C-MOVE request (See Fig. 20 and [0093]-[0098], [0103]-[0105]: 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, and interpreting the Prior fetch limit field provides the user with a means of selecting the limit of priors fetched to encompass dynamically determined by the C-MOVE request), 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);
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);
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; and
updating the model of the radiation oncology system in real time to reflect a current state of transfer, wherein the model is continuously updated in response to receiving updating information about each queried element.
Fletcher teaches a method for defining, by a processor of a computing device (See [0044]: 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); and
updating the model of the radiation oncology system in real time to reflect a current 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), wherein the model is continuously updated in response to receiving updating information about each queried element (See [0024]: The consequent results can update the knowledge represented by the rule-fact graph by asserting or retracting information, and rule interpretation can execute forward chaining when updated information affects other rules implied within the rule-fact graph, which the Examiner is interpreting consequent results to encompass receiving updated information about each queried element.)
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; and updating the model of the radiation oncology system in real time to reflect a current state of transfer, wherein the model is continuously updated in response to receiving updating information about each queried element 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 storing the updated model of the radiation oncology system in the non-transitory memory.
Fletcher teaches a method further comprising 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 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 May 14, 2026, the Applicant argues that the newly amended and/or added claims overcome the Claim Objection(s), 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s), and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s). The Examiner acknowledges that the newly added and/or amended claims overcome the previous Claim Objection(s). However, the Examiner does not acknowledge that the newly added and/or amended claims overcome the newly added Claim Objection(s), 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s), and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s).
The Applicant argues that:
(1) Applicant submits that claim 1 is not directed towards an abstract idea. As an initial matter, as set forth in Section 2106 of the MPEP, the determination of whether a claim is patent eligible rests on whether the claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception, e.g., whether the claim is nothing more than the judicial exception. Whether or not amended claim 1 includes elements that could be considered abstract, which Applicant disputes, amended claim 1 amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. In rejecting the claims, the Office asserts that the claims are directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. See Office action, page 5. Specifically, the Office contends that, but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claimed steps could be performed by a person following instructions to direct and route information from one source to another. See Office action, page 5. However, as amended, the claims herein are directed to a specific, computer-implemented technical process for dynamically routing medical imaging data among heterogeneous devices in a radiation oncology system. Critically, amended claim 1 now explicitly recites that the C-MOVE request is ''a DICOM® operation that induces the source workflow step to transfer stored SOP instances to the destination system element using a C-STORE operation." A DICOM® C-MOVE operation is a specific, standardized network protocol command defined by the DICOM® standard for medical imaging systems. It is a technical operation that executes at the network protocol level between DICOM® application entities. This operation cannot, under any reasonable interpretation, be performed by a person following instructions. It requires specific technical implementation in healthcare IT systems, specific network infrastructure, and specific DICOM®-compliant hardware and software. See Applicant's specification at paragraph [0051]. Additionally, amended claim 1 recites determining a ''current processing capability and a current available storage space of the destination system element at a time of the C-MOVE request'' and selecting a transfer path based on the ''current processing capability of the destination system element as dynamically determined by the C-MOVE request." These limitations require real-time, machine-to-machine communication at the network protocol level to dynamically assess the instantaneous state of specialized medical computing systems. No human could perform these operations mentally or by following paper-based instructions. The dynamic, real-time querying of processing capability and storage availability of networked medical devices is an inherently technical operation that exists only in the realm of computer networking and healthcare IT systems. Furthermore, amended claim 1 recites that ''the model is continuously updated in response to receiving updated information about each queried element." This continuous, automated, real-time updating of a graph-based model of a radiation oncology system in response to machine-generated data from networked devices is not a human activity. It is a specific technical operation performed by a computing system operating on a network of specialized medical devices;
(2) even assuming that some portion of the claims could be characterized as reciting an abstract idea, the claims as a whole are integrated into a practical application. The claims as amended herein recite a specific combination of technical elements that improve the functioning of a radiation oncology data network, and are therefore not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong Two of the USPTO's eligibility framework. The claimed combination of elements improves the technical functioning of a radiation oncology data network in several concrete ways. As described in Applicant's specification, conventional methods for routing radiation therapy data required a user to manually initiate data transfers among devices, manually select destination devices, and manually address incompatibilities in data formats and device capabilities. This manual approach was time-consuming, error-prone, and resulted in failed transfers due to incompatible formats or insufficient capacity. See Applicant's specification at paragraph [0018]. The claimed method addresses these technical deficiencies by reducing network congestion through model-based routing that selects optimal transfer paths based on real-time processing capability and storage availability. Additionally, 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. Further, the claimed method further enables dynamic, real-time routing adjustments through continuous model updates that reflect current system states and provides automated interoperability among heterogeneous medical devices through specific healthcare data transfer protocols and format transformation. See Applicant's specification at paragraphs [0041], [0042], and [0048]-[0052]. These are precisely the types of improvements to a technical field that the courts have recognized as integrating an abstract idea into a practical application. See, e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, the claimed method does not merely apply an abstract idea using generic computer components; it recites a specific technical solution using DICOM® C-MOVE as a dynamic real-time querying mechanism, combined with a continuously updated graph-based model, to intelligently route medical imaging data among heterogeneous devices in a way that improves the technical functioning of a radiation oncology data network. Even if the claims were found to be directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, which Applicant disputes, the claims as amended herein recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The combination of technical elements recited in the claims, including the DICOM® C-MOVE operation as a dynamic real-time querying mechanism, the graph-based model with continuous real-time updating, and the specific healthcare data transfer protocols, are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The use of DICOM® C-MOVE as a dynamic, real-time mechanism for querying the current processing capability and current available storage space of destination system elements, as opposed to its conventional use as a command to transfer stored SOP instances, represents a non-conventional and non-generic use of the C-MOVE operation that provides an inventive concept beyond any alleged abstract idea. In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 of claim 1 and all claims depending therefrom be withdrawn. Independent claims 10 and 16 have been amended in a similar manner to claim 1, and Applicant therefore submits that the arguments presented above with respect to claim 1 apply equally to claims 10 and 16. As such, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 of claims 10 and 16, and all claims depending therefrom, be withdrawn;
(3) none of the cited references, even if considered in combination, disclose or suggest ''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 current processing capability and a current available storage space of the destination system element at a time of the C-MOVE request." In rejecting previously presented claim 1, the Office asserts that Tochilnik discloses ''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 Office action, page 15. As discussed in the Examiner Interview, Tochilnik's C-MOVE is used as a destination selector in a user-configured routing rule, and is not used as a dynamic query mechanism for determining real-time processing capability and available storage space of destination elements. See Tochilnik at paragraph [0103]. More specifically, Tochilnik describes a user-configurable radiological data transformation, routing, and archiving engine in which all routing decisions are based on static, pre-configured routing conditions that are defined in advance by users through a graphical user interface. See Tochilnik at paragraphs [0018] and [0093]-[0098], and Figure 20. These routing decisions are made by matching data attributes against predetermined user-configured conditions, not by dynamically querying and assessing the current processing capability and current available storage space of destination system elements at the time of the C-MOVE request, as required by amended claim 1. The remaining cited references fail to cure the deficiencies of Tochilnik. For at least the reasons presented above, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 1 and all claims depending therefrom be withdrawn. Independent claims 10 and 16 have been amended in a similar manner to claim 1, and Applicant therefore submits that the arguments presented above with respect to claim 1 apply equally to claims 10 and 16. As such, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 10 and 16, and all claims depending therefrom, be withdrawn.
In response to argument (1), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that the Applicant’s newly amended claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The Examiner maintains that the newly amended claims encompass managing interactions between people (including following rules or instructions), which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as the addition of “wherein the C-MOVE request is a DICOM® operation that induces the source workflow step to transfer stored service-object pair (SOP) instances to the destination system element using a C-STORE operation”, determining a ''current processing capability and a current available storage space of the destination system element at a time of the C-MOVE request'' and selecting a transfer path based on the ''current processing capability of the destination system element as dynamically determined by the C-MOVE request." further describes using a computer as a tool to manage interactions between people, and identify a computer function to use to accomplish the abstract idea. The Examiner maintains that “the model is continuously updated in response to receiving updated information about each queried element” could be accomplished a user making changes to the functioning of a computer that is being used as a tool. 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 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 Examiner maintains that the limitations of “updating the model of the radiation oncology system in real-time to reflect a current state of transfer, wherein the model is continuously updated in response to receiving updated information about each queried element" 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 Examiner maintains that the use of the DICOM software is recited at a level of generality that amounts to 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 35 U.S.C. 101 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 and Fletcher teaches the newly amended independent claims 1, 10, and 16 as Tochilnik describes [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 current processing capability and a current available storage space of the destination system element at a time of the C-MOVE request 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]), and “The C-MOVE operation allows an application entity to instruct another application entity to transfer stored SOP Instances to another application entity using the C-STORE operation.” (See https://dicom.nema.org/medical/dicom/current/output/chtml/part04/sect_c.4.2.html). The Examiner maintains that Tochilnik’s description of the C-MOVE operation encompasses the Applicant’s newly amended claimed portions of “determine a current processing capability and a current available storage space of the destination system element at a time of the C-MOVE request, and wherein the C-MOVE request is a DICOM® operation that induces the source workflow step to transfer stored SOP instances to the destination system element using a C-STORE operation” as the Applicant’s claims describe the function of the C-MOVE request according to https://dicom.nema.org/medical/dicom/current/output/chtml/part04/sect_c.4.2.html. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seethamraju (U.S. Patent Publication No. 10,346,586), describes a computer-implemented method for managing imaging protocols among a plurality of image scanners includes creating parent node data records, each respective parent node data record corresponding to a distinct type of image scanner.
Shelton, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 11,659,023), describes a method including establishing a first communication link between a surgical visualization system outside a sterile field in an operating room and a primary display inside the sterile field, transmitting an image frame from the surgical visualization system to the primary display, establishing a second communication link between a surgical robotic hub in the operating room and the primary display, and transmitting another image frame from the surgical robotic hub to the primary display.
Mason et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 5,668,998), describes an application program interface is provided to a toolkit framework of service objects which enable rapid creation of application computer programs which implement the services and protocol of the Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM) standard.
Vreeland et al. (“Considerations for Exchanging and Sharing Medical Images for Improved Collaboration and Patient Care: HIMSS-SIIM Collaborative White Paper”), describes image sharing use cases and standards for image exchange that show increasing promise of being adopted by vendors and providers.
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
Prosecution Insights