CTFR 18/713,131 CTFR 86179 DETAILED ACTION 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This action is in reply to the application filed on 02/02/2026. Claims 1, 3, 12, 14 and 19 have been amended. Claims 2, 10-11 and 13 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-9, 12 and 14-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claims 1, 3-9, 12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Claims 1 and 3-9 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), claims 12 and 14-18 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), and claim 19-20 are directed to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1, 3-9, 12 and 14-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories. Step 2A - Prong One: An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. Representative independent claim 8 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea. Note that independent claim 1 is the system claim, while claim 12 covers a method claim and claim 19 covers the matching computer readable medium. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites: A system, comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise: a hash component that generates a first hash of a medical device protocol of one or more medical device protocols and a second hash of a library protocol of the one or more library protocols, the first hash and the second hash to be generated using a checksum algorithm; a conflict component that, according to a defined conflict criterion and based on a comparison using the first hash and the second hash of the one or more medical device protocols associated with a medical device and one or more library protocols associated with a protocol library, determines a protocol conflict ; and an output component that renders an output representative of the protocol conflict ; and a resolution component that, responsive to the protocol conflict and prior to writing a corresponding medical device protocol to the protocol library, automatically selects and applies a conflict resolution by executing a machine-learning model trained using historical pairs comprising a conflict type and a user-approved resolution, the conflict resolution comprising at least one of: (i) renaming a protocol title to remove leading or trailing spaces to satisfy a defined maximum number of alphanumeric characters, (ii) reassigning a protocol slot number to a slot number not currently occupied in the protocol library, or (iii) preventing duplication by replacing, merging, or omitting a protocol whose parameters match those of a library protocol, wherein the output component is further configured to generate, in a web-based portal, a conflict-resolution window that surfaces the automatically selected resolution with an option to apply the selected or overridden resolution prior to storing the protocol in a cloud-based protocol library. Specifically, independent claim 12 recites: A method, comprising: generating a first hash of a medical device protocol of one or more medical device protocols and a second hash of a library protocol of the one or more library protocols, the first hash and the second hash to be generated using a checksum algorithm: according to a defined conflict criterion and based on a comparison using the first and second hash of one or more medical device protocols associated with a medical device and one or more library protocols associated with a protocol library, determining , by a system comprising a processor, a protocol conflict; generating , by the system, an output representative of the protocol conflict ; and automatically selecting and applying, responsive to the protocol conflict and prior to writing a corresponding medical device protocol to the protocol library, a conflict resolution by executing a machine-learning model trained using historical pairs comprising a conflict type and a user-approved resolution, the conflict resolution comprising at least one of. (i) renaming a protocol title to remove leading or trailing spaces to satisfy a defined maximum number of alphanumeric characters, (ii) reassigning a protocol slot number to a slot number not currently occupied in the protocol library, or (iii) preventing duplication by replacing, merging, or omitting a protocol whose parameters match those of a library protocol, wherein the output component is further configured to generate, in a web-based portal , a conflict-resolution window that surfaces the automatically selected resolution with an option to apply the selected or overridden resolution prior to storing the protocol in a cloud-based protocol library. The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: (a) “ certain methods of organizing human activity ” because determining a defined conflict criterion, based comparing medical device protocols associated with a medical device and library protocols associated with a protocol library, generating an output representative of the protocol conflict and managing medical device protocols are a part of a medical workflow, selecting and applying, responsive to the protocol conflict and implements protocols/guidelines, which are managing human behavior/interactions between people. Furthermore, these limitations constitute (b) “ a mental process ” because associating or comparing medical device protocols with library protocols, renaming a protocol title to remove leading or trailing spaces to satisfy a defined maximum number of alphanumeric characters, reassigning a protocol slot number to a slot number not currently occupied in the protocol library are observations/evaluations/analysis that can be performed in the human mind or with a pen and paper. The foregoing underlined limitations also relate to claim 19 (similarly to claims 1 and 12). Accordingly, the claim describes at least one abstract idea. In relation to claims 3, 5-6, 14-15, 17-18 and 20, these claims merely recite specific kinds of data, such as: claim 3 - the defined conflict criterion comprises a match between the first hash and the second hash , claim 5 - the defined conflict criterion comprises a quantity of alphanumeric characters represented in a title of a medical device protocol of the one or more medical device protocols, claim 6 - the defined conflict criterion comprises a presence of a leading space or a trailing space in a name of a title of a medical device protocol of the one or more medical device protocols, claim 14 - the conflict resolution window comprises a label indicative of a protocol state of a medical device protocol of the one or more medical device protocols, claim 15 - the label comprises a new label representative of the medical device protocol existing only on the medical device, claim 17 - the label comprises a deviated label representative of a medical device protocol of the one or more medical device protocols comprising a name that deviates from a name of a library protocol of the one or more library protocols, claim 18 - the label comprises a deviated label representative of a medical device protocol of the one or more medical device protocols comprising a slot number that deviates from a slot number of a library protocol of the one or more library protocols and claim 20 - the medical device comprises x-ray machine, computed tomography scanner, or a magnetic resonance imaging machine. In relation to claims 2, 4, 7-9 and 16, these claims merely recite determining steps such as: claim 2 - a hash component that generates a first hash of a medical device protocol of the one or more medical device protocols and a second hash of a library protocol of the one or more library protocols, claim 4 - the defined conflict criterion comprises a match between a first title of a medical device protocol of the one or more medical device protocols and a second title of a library protocol of the one or more library protocols, claim 7 - the defined conflict criterion comprises a first slot number of a medical device protocol of the one or more medical device protocols matching a second slot number of a library protocol of the one or more library protocols , claim 8 - the defined conflict criterion comprises a presence of a duplication of a protocol, claim 9 - matching a second set of parameters represented in a library protocol of the one or more library protocols, and claim 16 - the label comprises a deviated label representative of a medical device protocol of the one or more medical device protocols comprising one or more parameters that deviate from one or more parameters of a library protocol of the one or more library protocols. Step 2A - Prong Two: Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” The limitations of claims 1, 12 and 19, as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system, a memory that stores computer executable components, a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, using a checksum algorithm, a graphical user interface, a cloud-based protocol library and a cloud-based storage to perform the limitations, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation within a health care environment in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the system, memory that stores computer executable components, processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, using the checksum algorithm, the graphical user interface, the cloud-based protocol library and the cloud-based storage are recited at high levels of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving data/inputs, determining and providing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Regarding the additional limitations “a conflict component”, “an output component,” and “a hash component,” the Examiner submits that this additional limitation amount to merely using a computer to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvements in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or us the above-noted implement/use to above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see 2019 PEG and MPEP §2106.05). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B, in representative independent claim 8, regarding the additional limitations of the system, memory that stores computer executable components, processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, using the checksum algorithm, the graphical user interface and the cloud-based storage, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, representative independent claim 8 and analogous independent claims 1 and 12 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The dependent claims no not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claims 1, 3-9, 12 and 14-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stalling (US 11,183,292 B2) in view of DeBates (US 12,586,689 B2) . Claim 1: Stalling discloses A system, comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components ( See CPU, processor, memory in column 3, line 65 to column 4, line 40 and executing program in column 22, line 62 to column 23, line 30.) comprise: a conflict component that, according to a defined conflict criterion and based on a comparison using the first hash and the second hash ( See list of input fields implement security hash for exemplary DICOM protocol in the form of DICOM tags and study selection rules in column 10, lines 38-49, column 29, lines 10-38, column 30, lines 11-32. Also, see Fig. 1-2 [column 8 line 50 to column 9, line 15] the top right the ‘Hospital Name’ as SPRINGFIELD GENERAL HOSPITAL, the ‘Imaging Device Name’ KODAK Elite CR, and the ‘Physician's Name’ as Dr PETER JACKSON. Fig. 7 column 29, lines 10-38, column 30, lines 11-32 study selection rule where “Prior study must match all of the following” include Modality, Body Part Examined and Study Description.) of the one or more medical device protocols associated with a medical device and one or more library protocols associated with a protocol library, determines a protocol conflict (With medical devices as medical image devices, see CT, MRI, PET, confocal microscopes, 3D ultrasound devices, and other imaging devices in column 2, lines 7-19. See processor in column 3, line 65 to column 4, line 7 and 26-28, medical image display protocols (column 4, lines 61-67) and various rules (column 29, lines 10-38.); and an output component that renders an output representative of the protocol conflict (Regarding medical image studies among different modalities (column 27, line 46 to column28, line 20), see rules such as study selection rules, protocol selection rules (column 29, line 50 to column 30, line 32, column 31, lines 5 to column 32, line 14), image set rules, viewer assignment rules, style rules serve as a library of medical device protocols associated with a medical device and exemplary resolving conflict in [column 33, line 1 to column 35, line 23 ] This conflict is resolved in the same way as described herein in the Normalization of DICOM Parameters section. This means that values of DICOM parameters, but also abstract tags, are automatically taken from some reference image. Alternatively, for all DICOM parameters a list of distinct values occurring in all images of the image set can be used in an assignment rule .); and a resolution component that, responsive to the protocol conflict and prior to writing a corresponding medical device protocol to the protocol library, automatically selects and applies a conflict resolution by executing a machine-learning model trained using historical pairs comprising a conflict type and a user-approved resolution, the conflict resolution comprising at least one of: (i) renaming a protocol title to remove leading or trailing spaces to satisfy a defined maximum number of alphanumeric characters, (ii) reassigning a protocol slot number to a slot number not currently occupied in the protocol library, or (iii) preventing duplication by replacing, merging, or omitting a protocol whose parameters match those of a library protocol, wherein the output component is further configured to generate, in a web-based portal, a conflict-resolution window that surfaces the automatically selected resolution with an option to apply the selected or overridden resolution prior to storing the protocol in a cloud-based protocol library (See exemplary renaming labelled de-identified from ‘Patient ID’ to ‘ID’ in column 7, line 61 to column 8, line 2, and no re-identification of mapped medical images column 9, line 60 to column 10, line 49 serve as preventing duplication and DICOM tags serve as reassigning a protocol slot number to a slot number not currently occupied in the protocol library for the medical images.). Although Stalling discloses the system, method and software for retendering an output representative of a medical device protocol conflict and by satisfying resolved conflict resolutions as mentioned above, Stalling does not explicitly teach generating a medical device first hash and a stored second hash of protocols using a checksum algorithm. DeBates teaches: a hash component that generates a first hash of a medical device protocol of one or more medical device protocols and a second hash of a library protocol of the one or more library protocols, the first hash and the second hash to be generated using a checksum algorithm (See generated value when validating a clinician programming device using checksum mentioned in column 21, line 43 to column 22, line 28, and column 25, lines 8 -21 where the validated value is a generated hash.), Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of patient and clinician-controlled devices before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, method and software of Stalling to include generating a medical device first hash and a stored second hash of protocols using a checksum algorithm as taught by DeBates for encrypting with a suitable cryptographical key mentioned in DeBates’ column 25, lines 15-24. Regarding claim 3, Stalling discloses the system of claim 1 , wherein the defined conflict criterion comprises a match between the first hash and the second hash (See Fig. 7 column 29, lines 10-38, column 30, lines 11-32 study selection rule where “Prior study must match all of the following” include Modality, Body Part Examined and Study Description.). Regarding claim 4, Stalling discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the defined conflict criterion comprises a match between a first title of a medical device protocol of the one or more medical device protocols and a second title of a library protocol of the one or more library protocols (See column 29, line 50 to column 30, line 17 where matching criterion include Study and Study Description as titles.). Regarding claim 5, Stalling discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the defined conflict criterion comprises a quantity of alphanumeric characters represented in a title of a medical device protocol of the one or more medical device protocols (See exemplary DICOM tags include identifiers (0008,0080) or (0010,0021) mentioned in column 10, lines 38-49 and NumSeries indicate the number of image series in a study in column 31, lines 13-32.). Regarding claim 6, Stalling discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the defined conflict criterion comprises a presence of a leading space or a trailing space in a name of a title of a medical device protocol of the one or more medical device protocols (See column 9, line 53 to column 10, line 14 where pre-filled unique random values and leaving the Institution Name and Study Comment fields blank allow textual leading space or a trailing space in a name of a title.). Regarding claim 7, Stalling discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the defined conflict criterion comprises a first slot number of a medical device protocol of the one or more medical device protocols matching a second slot number of a library protocol of the one or more library protocols (See column 29, line 59 to column 30, line 6 matching criteria include expression operators of a number of image series and defined values.). Regarding claim 8, Stalling discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the defined conflict criterion comprises a presence of a duplication of a protocol (See column 8, line 63 to column 9, line 4 where the same study in “teaching mode” allow for duplication.). Regarding claim 9, Stalling discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the duplication comprises a first set of parameters represented in a medical device protocol of the one or more medical device protocols matching a second set of parameters represented in a library protocol of the one or more library protocols (See rendering parameters and matching criteria include DICOM parameters in column 4, lines 52-67, column 29, line 50 to column 30, line 17.). Claim 12: Stalling discloses A method, comprising: according to a defined conflict criterion and based on a comparison using the first hash and the second hash ( See list of input fields implement security hash for exemplary DICOM protocol in the form of DICOM tags and study selection rules in column 10, lines 38-49, column 29, lines 10-38, column 30, lines 11-32. Also, see Fig. 1-2 [column 8 line 50 to column 9, line 15] the top right the ‘Hospital Name’ as SPRINGFIELD GENERAL HOSPITAL, the ‘Imaging Device Name’ KODAK Elite CR, and the ‘Physician's Name’ as Dr PETER JACKSON. Fig. 7 column 29, lines 10-38, column 30, lines 11-32 study selection rule where “Prior study must match all of the following” include Modality, Body Part Examined and Study Description.) of one or more medical device protocols associated with a medical device and one or more library protocols associated with a protocol library, determining, by a system comprising a processor, a protocol conflict (With medical devices as medical image devices, see CT, MRI, PET, confocal microscopes, 3D ultrasound devices, and other imaging devices in column 2, lines 7-19. See processor in column 3, line 65 to column 4, line 7 and 26-28, medical image display protocols (column 4, lines 61-67) and various rules (column 29, lines 10-38.); and generating, by the system, an output representative of the protocol conflict (Regarding medical image studies among different modalities (column 27, line 46 to column28, line 20), see rules such as study selection rules, protocol selection rules (column 29, line 50 to column 30, line 32, column 31, lines 5 to column 32, line 14), image set rules, viewer assignment rules, style rules serve as a library of medical device protocols associated with a medical device and exemplary resolving conflict in [column 33, line 1 to column 35, line 23 ] This conflict is resolved in the same way as described herein in the Normalization of DICOM Parameters section. This means that values of DICOM parameters, but also abstract tags, are automatically taken from some reference image. Alternatively, for all DICOM parameters a list of distinct values occurring in all images of the image set can be used in an assignment rule .); and automatically selecting and applying, responsive to the protocol conflict and prior to writing a corresponding medical device protocol to the protocol library, a conflict resolution by executing a machine-learning model trained using historical pairs comprising a conflict type and a user-approved resolution, the conflict resolution comprising at least one of. (i) renaming a protocol title to remove leading or trailing spaces to satisfy a defined maximum number of alphanumeric characters, (ii) reassigning a protocol slot number to a slot number not currently occupied in the protocol library, or (iii) preventing duplication by replacing, merging, or omitting a protocol whose parameters match those of a library protocol, wherein the output component is further configured to generate, in a web-based portal, a conflict-resolution window that surfaces the automatically selected resolution with an option to apply the selected or overridden resolution prior to storing the protocol in a cloud-based protocol library (See exemplary renaming labelled de-identified from ‘Patient ID’ to ‘ID’ in column 7, line 61 to column 8, line 2, and no re-identification of mapped medical images column 9, line 60 to column 10, line 49 serve as preventing duplication and DICOM tags serve as reassigning a protocol slot number to a slot number not currently occupied in the protocol library for the medical images.). Although Stalling discloses the system, method and software for retendering an output representative of a medical device protocol conflict and by satisfying resolved conflict resolutions as mentioned above, Stalling does not explicitly teach generating a medical device first hash and a stored second hash of protocols using a checksum algorithm. DeBates teaches: generating a first hash of a medical device protocol of one or more medical device protocols and a second hash of a library protocol of the one or more library protocols, the first hash and the second hash to be generated using a checksum algorithm (See generated value when validating a clinician programming device using checksum mentioned in column 21, line 43 to column 22, line 28, and column 25, lines 8 -21 where the validated value is a generated hash.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of patient and clinician-controlled devices before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, method and software of Stalling to include generating a medical device first hash and a stored second hash of protocols using a checksum algorithm as taught by DeBates for encrypting with a suitable cryptographical key mentioned in DeBates’ column 25, lines 15-24. Regarding claim 14, Stalling discloses the method of claim 12 , wherein the conflict resolution window comprises a label indicative of a protocol state of a medical device protocol of the one or more medical device protocols (See Fig. 7 “Current study must match all of the following:” is reflective of a protocol state or status. Also, see column 33, line 1 to column 35, line 23.). Regarding claim 15, Stalling discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the label comprises a new label representative of the medical device protocol existing only on the medical device (See [column 8, lines 34-49] The Imaging Device Name corresponds with the device used to measure the displayed X-Ray image, however the invention can be used for other manufacturer's X-Ray image devices, for other PACS devices .) Regarding claim 16, Stalling discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the label comprises a deviated label representative of a medical device protocol of the one or more medical device protocols comprising one or more parameters that deviate from one or more parameters of a library protocol of the one or more library protocols (See column 8, line 63 to column 9, line 4 where the same study in “teaching mode” allow for deviation label.). Regarding claim 17, Stalling discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the label comprises a deviated label representative of a medical device protocol of the one or more medical device protocols comprising a name that deviates from a name of a library protocol of the one or more library protocols (See column 2, lines 32-40, column 7, lines 28-60 where anonymized data and non- anonymized data set in column 8, lines 34-49 serve as names that deviate from a name of a library protocol.) Regarding claim 18, Stalling discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the label comprises a deviated label representative of a medical device protocol of the one or more medical device protocols comprising a slot number that deviates from a slot number of a library protocol of the one or more library protocols (Taught in column 9, lines 55-60 as an accession number and study being pre-filled with unique random values. Also, see Fig. 3B DICOM tag include numbers used to identify patient and study data.). Claim 19: Stalling discloses A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations (See CPU, processor, memory in column 3, line 65 to column 4, line 40 and executing program in column 22, line 62 to column 23, line 30.) , comprising: according to a defined conflict criterion and based on a comparison using the first hash and the second hash ( See list of input fields implement security hash for exemplary DICOM protocol in the form of DICOM tags and study selection rules in column 10, lines 38-49, column 29, lines 10-38, column 30, lines 11-32. Also, see Fig. 1-2 [column 8 line 50 to column 9, line 15] the top right the ‘Hospital Name’ as SPRINGFIELD GENERAL HOSPITAL, the ‘Imaging Device Name’ KODAK Elite CR, and the ‘Physician's Name’ as Dr PETER JACKSON. Fig. 7 column 29, lines 10-38, column 30, lines 11-32 study selection rule where “Prior study must match all of the following” include Modality, Body Part Examined and Study Description.) of one or more medical device protocols associated with a medical device and one or more library protocols associated with a protocol library, determining a protocol conflict (With medical devices as medical image devices, see CT, MRI, PET, confocal microscopes, 3D ultrasound devices, and other imaging devices in column 2, lines 7-19. See processor in column 3, line 65 to column 4, line 7 and 26-28, medical image display protocols (column 4, lines 61-67) and various rules (column 29, lines 10-38.); and rendering an output representative of the protocol conflict via a user interface of the medical device (Regarding medical image studies among different modalities (column 27, line 46 to column28, line 20), see rules such as study selection rules, protocol selection rules (column 29, line 50 to column 30, line 32, column 31, lines 5 to column 32, line 14), image set rules, viewer assignment rules, style rules serve as a library of medical device protocols associated with a medical device and exemplary resolving conflict in [column 33, line 1 to column 35, line 23 ] This conflict is resolved in the same way as described herein in the Normalization of DICOM Parameters section. This means that values of DICOM parameters, but also abstract tags, are automatically taken from some reference image. Alternatively, for all DICOM parameters a list of distinct values occurring in all images of the image set can be used in an assignment rule .); and automatically selecting and applying, responsive to the protocol conflict and prior to writing a corresponding medical device protocol to the protocol library, a conflict resolution by executing a machine-learning model trained using historical pairs comprising a conflict type and a user-approved resolution, the conflict resolution comprising at least one of. (i) renaming a protocol title to remove leading or trailing spaces to satisfy a defined maximum number of alphanumeric characters, (ii) reassigning a protocol slot number to a slot number not currently occupied in the protocol library, or (iii) preventing duplication by replacing, merging, or omitting a protocol whose parameters match those of a library protocol, wherein the output component is further configured to generate, in a web-based portal, a conflict-resolution window that surfaces the automatically selected resolution with an option to apply the selected or overridden resolution prior to storing the protocol in a cloud-based protocol library (See exemplary renaming labelled de-identified from ‘Patient ID’ to ‘ID’ in column 7, line 61 to column 8, line 2, and no re-identification of mapped medical images column 9, line 60 to column 10, line 49 serve as preventing duplication and DICOM tags serve as reassigning a protocol slot number to a slot number not currently occupied in the protocol library for the medical images.). Although Stalling discloses the system, method and software for retendering an output representative of a medical device protocol conflict and by satisfying resolved conflict resolutions as mentioned above, Stalling does not explicitly teach generating a medical device first hash and a stored second hash of protocols using a checksum algorithm. DeBates teaches: generating a first hash of a medical device protocol of one or more medical device protocols and a second hash of a library protocol of the one or more library protocols, the first hash and the second hash to be generated using a checksum algorithm (See generated value when validating a clinician programming device using checksum mentioned in column 21, line 43 to column 22, line 28, and column 25, lines 8 -21 where the validated value is a generated hash.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of patient and clinician-controlled devices before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, method and software of Stalling to include generating a medical device first hash and a stored second hash of protocols using a checksum algorithm as taught by DeBates for encrypting with a suitable cryptographical key mentioned in DeBates’ column 25, lines 15-24. Regarding Claim 20, Stalling discloses the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 19, wherein the medical device comprises x-ray machine, computed tomography scanner, or a magnetic resonance imaging machine (S ee CT, MRI, PET, confocal microscopes, 3D ultrasound devices, and other imaging devices in column 2, lines 7-19.) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stalling (US 11,183,292 B2) in view of DeBates (US 12,586,689 B2) further in view of Wang (US 12,191,891 B2) . Regarding claim 11, although Stalling and DeBates teach the system of claim 1 mentioned above, Stalling and DeBates do not explicitly teach cloud-based storage. Wang teaches wherein the protocol library is stored in a cloud-based storage communicatively coupled to the medical device (See cloud servers and platforms in column 10, lines 52-56, column 13, lines 1-16.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of managing medical image files before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Stalling and DeBates to include cloud-based storage as taught by Wang to provide efficient systems and methods for medical data storage mentioned in Wang’s column 1, lines 30-31 . Response to Arguments Applicant argues that amended claims 1, 12 and 19 are not directed to an abstract idea, integrated into a practical application, result in a technical improvement, see pgs. 8-13 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees. The amendment reciting, "a hash component that generates a first hash of a medical device protocol of the one or more medical device protocols and a second hash of a library protocol of the one or more library protocols, the first hash and the second hash to be generated using a checksum algorithm" and "a resolut ion component that, responsive to the protocol conflict and prior to writing a corresponding medical device protocol to the protocol library, automatically selects and applies a conflict resolution by executing a machine-learning model trained using historical pairs comprising a conflict type and a user-approved resolution, the conflict resolution comprising at least one of: (i) renaming a protocol title to remove leading or trailing spaces to satisfy a defined maximum number of alphanumeric characters, (ii) reassigning a protocol slot number to a slot number not currently occupied in the protocol library, or (iii) preventing duplication by replacing, merging, or omitting a protocol whose parameters match those of a library protocol, wherein the output component is further configured to generate, in a web-based portal, a conflict-resolution window that surfaces the automatically selected resolution with an option to apply the selected or overridden resolution prior to storing the protocol in a cloud-based protocol library ," are ways of merely using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea (saying “apply it”) and is merely using the computer in the manner in which it was designed to be used, i.e., performing generic computer functions. Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are now moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The Examiner has entered a new rejection under 35 USC § 103(a) and applied new art and art already of record. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Arkoff (US 2026/0121859 A1), Forsell (US 2024/0214798 A1) & Wang WO 2024/200344 A1) . 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 TERESA S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-5509. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30 am -6:30 pm. 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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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. /T.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3687 05/27/2026 /ALAAELDIN M. ELSHAER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687 Application/Control Number: 18/713,131 Page 2 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 18/713,131 Page 3 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 18/713,131 Page 4 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 18/713,131 Page 5 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 18/713,131 Page 6 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 18/713,131 Page 7 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 18/713,131 Page 8 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 18/713,131 Page 9 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 18/713,131 Page 10 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 18/713,131 Page 11 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 18/713,131 Page 12 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 18/713,131 Page 13 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 18/713,131 Page 14 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 18/713,131 Page 15 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 18/713,131 Page 16 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 18/713,131 Page 17 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 18/713,131 Page 18 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 18/713,131 Page 19 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 18/713,131 Page 20 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 18/713,131 Page 21 Art Unit: 3687 Application/Control Number: 18/713,131 Page 22 Art Unit: 3687
Prosecution Insights