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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 12/01/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-9, 11-12, and 14-21 are pending. Claims 1, 16, and 19 have been amended. New claim 21 is added. Claim 13 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9, 11-12, and 14-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 16 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raman et al. (US 20200222020) hereinafter Raman in view of WEN et al. (US 20220365159) hereinafter WEN and Gupta et al. (US 20200210549) hereinafter Gupta and further in view of Ukis et al. (US 20180121602) hereinafter Ukis.
Regarding claim 1, Raman teaches a system, comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory (i.e. For example, a module, unit, or system may include a computer processor, controller, and/or other logic-based device that performs operations based on instructions stored on a tangible and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, such as a computer memory, [0038]), wherein the computer executable components comprise: an input component that receives network settings management input (i.e. A protocol can include multiple sets of technical settings for different models of devices, [0050] and it should be understood that the protocol intake process described with reference to FIG. 15 is for purposes of illustration only and not for limitation. Any suitable protocol input process with more, fewer, and/or different operations can be implemented to pull protocols from imaging devices, [0137]); and a network settings management component that that remotely manages network settings of one or more imaging protocols of a library associated with one or more imaging devices of an organization via an imaging protocol manager based on the network settings management input (i.e. A deviation is a difference between a protocol stored on a specific device and a corresponding published protocol stored within a protocol manager library on the cloud, [0045] and A protocol can also be referred to as an imaging protocol, [0051]).
However, Raman does not explicitly disclose wherein the managing comprises identifying and storing one or more links between the one or more imaging protocols and at least one network host, wherein the one or more imaging protocols are accessed by the system to execute an imaging procedure that generates one or more medical images, wherein the generated medical images are transferred using the one or more imaging protocols linked with the at least one network host.
However, WEN teaches wherein the managing comprises identifying and storing one or more links between the one or more imaging protocols and at least one network host (i.e. The communication port 240 may be connected to a network (e.g., the network 150) to facilitate data communications. The communication port 240 may establish connections between the computing device 200 (e.g., the processing device 120) and one or more components of the MRI system 100 (e.g., the MRI scanner 110, the storage device 130, and/or the terminal device 140). The connection may be a wired connection, a wireless connection, any other communication connection that can enable data transmission and/or reception, and/or a combination of these connections. The wired connection may include, for example, an electrical cable, an optical cable, a telephone wire, or the like, or a combination thereof. The wireless connection may include, for example, a Bluetooth™ link, a Wi-Fi™ link, a WiMax™ link, a WLAN link, a ZigBee link, a mobile network link (e.g., 3G, 4G, 5G, etc.), the communication port 240 may be designed in accordance with the digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) protocol, [0074]), wherein the one or more imaging protocols are accessed by the system to execute an imaging procedure that generates one or more medical images (i.e. The MRI scanner 110 may be configured to scan a subject (or a part of the subject) to acquire image data, such as echo signals (also referred to as magnetic resonance (MR) data or MR signals) associated with the subject, [0056] and The MRI scanner 110 may perform an imaging scan on the subject according to the imaging protocol, [0109]), wherein the generated medical images are transferred using the one or more imaging protocols linked with the at least one network host (i.e. The processing device 120 may process data and/or information obtained from the MRI scanner 110, [0059] and the data may include image data acquired by the processing device 120, algorithms and/or models for processing the image data, etc. For example, the storage device 130 may store imaging signals obtained from an MRI scanner (e.g., the MRI scanner 110), [0061]).
Based on Raman in view of WEN, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of WEN to the system of Raman in order to provide improving imaging efficiency and imaging quality, (WEN, [0003]).
However, Raman in view of WEN do not explicitly disclose wherein a merging component merges network classifiers into a single network classifier.
However, Gupta teaches wherein a merging component merges network classifiers into a single network classifier (i.e. the first and second classifiers can be ensemble combined and applied as a combined classifier, the first and second classifiers associated with plurality of network destinations of the plurality of user devices, [0057]).
Based on Raman in view of WEN and further in view of Gupta, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Gupta to the system of Raman and WEN in order to easily controlling network-connectable devices.
However, Raman in view of WEN and further in view of Gupta do not explicitly disclose wherein the computer executable components further comprise a visualization component that generates a graphical representation of the network settings comprising the one or more links between the one or more imaging protocols in the library, the at least one network host, and the single network classifier generated by the merging component.
However, Ukis teaches wherein the computer executable components further comprise a visualization component that generates a graphical representation of the network settings comprising the one or more links between the one or more imaging protocols in the library, the at least one network host, and the single network classifier generated by the merging component (i.e. The devices are associated with second properties. FIG. 2 also shows a graphical representation 202 (e.g., a “Scanner Graph Entity”) of one of the scanners (e.g., “Scanner”). In one embodiment, the second properties include an institution, a department, a type of medical imaging device, protocols installed at the medical imaging device, dose values, a modality type, images, and utilization of the medical imaging device, [0029], the computing device connects with picture archiving and communication systems (PACSs) and scanners within the respective hospital 1302, 1304. The computing device identifies and obtains (e.g., receives), for example, imaging studies and/or related information (e.g., data) for the micro-data items to be displayed within the personalized medical feed, [0101] and the system 1400 includes a scanner graph monitoring engine 1402. The scanner graph monitoring engine 1402 constructs, monitors, and maintains scanner graphs. The scanner graph monitoring engine 1402 maintains links for the first, second, and third degree connections. The scanner graphs are stored in cloud storage and are made available for programmatic consumption by, for example, a scalable REST-based public application program interface (API), [0105], Fig. 2-9).
Based on Raman in view of WEN and Gupta and further in view of Ukis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Ukis to the system of Raman, WEN, and Gupta in order to provide medical information representation using a continuous feed of simple micro-data aids in the speed of information processing, [0126]).
Regarding claim 2, Raman teaches the network settings management input is from a user device (i.e. After registration, protocols can be imported (i.e., pulled) from the imaging devices 112-118 and stored in the database 124 in the cloud. One or more protocol team(s) (e.g., radiologist, physician, technician, researcher) can access the imaging protocol manager 120 from a user device 130, which can be, for example, a workstation, computer, laptop, or other processing device, [0076]).
Regarding claim 3, Raman teaches the imaging protocol manager is a cloud- based application (i.e. An example imaging protocol managing system includes a cloud-based protocol manager that manages imaging protocols across multiple modalities, [0040]).
Regarding claim 4, Raman teaches the computer executable components further comprise: an editing component that edits the network settings for the one or more imaging protocols (i.e. Rather, centralized protocol management with edit support (e.g., protocol renaming, etc.) helps to eliminate significant time waste, [0064] and A particular imaging protocol can be accessed for reviewing and/or editing, [0066]).
Regarding claim 5, Raman teaches computer executable components further comprise: a copying component that copies the network settings from a first imaging device to a second imaging device for a set of imaging protocols (i.e. The user can compare two or more protocols including, for example, versions of device protocols, versions of library protocols, first device protocol versus second device protocol, device protocol versus standard library protocol, library standard protocol versus library standard protocol, etc. Deviation can be tracked via baselining and comparison, [0164], such that the protocols will be assigned to all devices), wherein the first imaging device and the second imaging device are associated with a same set of network hosts (i.e. The web host for protocol application 218 supports, for example, a web-based portal/application for the protocol team(s) to access the imaging protocol manager 210 from a user device, [0080] and [0076]).
Regarding claim 6, Raman teaches the computer executable components further comprise: a remapping component that remaps the network settings from a first network host to a second network host (i.e. Referring to FIG. 21, a dashed line is used to schematically separate operations performed by the cloud agent 350 and operations performed by the image protocol manager 310. At operation 2102, devices that are compatible with the protocol(s) to be pushed are determined by the compatible checker 344 at the imaging protocol manager 310. As discussed above, metadata for a published protocol includes a model ID (i.e., UID). Each UID is given to a compatible group of imaging devices. There can be multiple models that are mapped to the same model UID, [0175]).
Regarding claims 16, 19, and 20, the limitations of claims 16, 19, and 20 are similar to the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Raman further teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, comprising executable instructions (i.e. instructions stored on a tangible and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, such as a computer memory, [0038]). Therefore, the limitations of claims 16, 19, and 20 are rejected in the analysis of claims 1 and 3 above, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 21, Raman in view of WEN and further in view of Gupta do not explicitly disclose the visualization component applies a visual indicator to the graphical representation to indicate when a network host has been deleted, added, or updated on an imaging device.
However, Ukis teaches the visualization component applies a visual indicator to the graphical representation to indicate when a network host has been deleted, added, or updated on an imaging device (i.e. The dataset for the user is updated as data within the dataset for the user changes. For example, the dataset for the user may change when the user changes institutions, changes departments, changes roles, and/or is associated with more studies, [0032] and the dataset for the scanner is updated as data within the dataset for the scanner changes. For example, the dataset for the scanner may change when the scanner is installed in a new institution, is installed in a new department, changes protocols, as doses are applied to respective patients, as images are acquired, and/or as scans are started and stopped, [0033]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 21 are rejected in the analysis of claims 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raman et al. (US 20200222020) hereinafter Raman in view of WEN et al. (US 20220365159) hereinafter WEN and Gupta et al. (US 20200210549) hereinafter Gupta and Ukis et al. (US 20180121602) hereinafter Ukis and further in view of JUNG et al. (US 20190074083) hereinafter JUNG.
Regarding claim 7, Raman in view of WEN and Gupta and further in view of Ukis teaches the limitations of claim 1 above.
However, Raman in view of WEN and Gupta and further in view of Ukis do not explicitly disclose a definition component that associates network hosts of the imaging devices with the network classifiers.
However, JUNG teaches a definition component that associates network hosts of the imaging devices with the network classifiers (i.e. At least one embodiment of the invention relates to a method for determining classification data for adaption of an examination protocol based on a basic examination protocol of a medical imaging examination as a function of status parameters of the medical imaging examination, [0089] and The control device 30, in particular the data processing unit 35, is formed by a data processing system which has a computer. The data processing unit 35 can be the data processing unit 35-1 for determining classification data and/or the data processing unit 35-2 for adaption of an examination protocol, [0182]).
Based on Raman in view of WEN and Gupta and Ukis and further in view of JUNG, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of JUNG to the system of Raman, WEN, Gupta, and Ukis in order to permit the system to classify the devices and associate them with the chosen protocols.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Raman in view of WEN, Gupta, and Ukis and further in view of JUNG teaches the network settings management component can manage the network classifiers and their associated network hosts at an organization level (JUNG [0089] and [0182]). Raman further discloses and their associated network hosts at an organization level (para [0076], [0102] and [0175]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 9 are rejected in the analysis of claims 7 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Raman in view of WEN, Gupta, and Ukis and further in view of JUNG teaches the computer executable components further comprise: a standardization component that standardizes the network settings of imaging protocols across imaging devices at a given organizational level (i.e. "The imaging protocol manager 210 corresponds to the imaging protocol manager 120 ... which is a cloud-based software solution that helps maintain and standardize imaging protocols for equipment, (Raman, [0078]) based on the single network classifier (i.e. JUNG, [0089] and [0182]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 11 are rejected in the analysis of claims 9 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 12, Raman teaches the computer executable components further comprise: a notification component that notifies a user when there are two or more imaging devices in the same organizational division containing non-identical network settings for an imaging protocol (i.e. the user can rename, version, and/or otherwise arrange protocols in the cloud-based imaging protocol manager 310, for example. The user can search protocols in the device protocols database 322 and/or the standard protocols database 324 by name, body part, anatomy, age (e.g., pediatric versus adult), patient size, etc. The user can compare two or more protocols including, for example, versions of device protocols, versions of library protocols, first device protocol versus second device protocol, device protocol versus standard library protocol, library standard protocol versus library standard protocol, etc. Deviation can be tracked via baselining and comparison, [0164] and the push service module 364 checks the status of the imaging device and activates a notification based on the device status, the notification may be activated for the review by a technician or clinical specialist responsible for the operation of the imaging device. The notification can be provided via a user interface (e.g., GUI) displayed at the imaging device or a workstation associated with the imaging device, [0180]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Raman in view of WEN, Gupta, and Ukis and further in view of JUNG teaches the network settings management component manages the network settings (i.e. Raman, [0050] and [0137]) based on the network classifiers (i.e. JUNG, [0089] and [0182]) at a given organizational level (i.e. at a given organizational level, Raman, [0050] and [0137]. Therefore, the limitations of claim 14 are rejected in the analysis of claims 7 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 15, Raman teaches the computer executable components further comprise: a synchronization component that synchronizes the network hosts of a given imaging device with the imaging protocol manager to the given imaging device (i.e. Each library can have one or more groups, subgroups, etc., organized by device, device type, imaging type, location, organization, etc. In certain example, the GUI can show a view of connected device(s) and protocol deviation(s), and other information, such as status of pulling/pushing transactions, notifications, help information, [0067], [0076], and [0164]).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the limitations of claims 17 and 18 are similar to the limitations of claims 7 and 11. Therefore, the limitations of claims 17 and 18 are rejected in the analysis of claims 7 and 11 above, and the claims are rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raman et al. (US 20200222020) hereinafter Raman in view of WEN et al. (US 20220365159) hereinafter WEN and Gupta et al. (US 20200210549) hereinafter Gupta, and Ukis et al. (US 20180121602) hereinafter Ukis and JUNG et al. (US 20190074083) hereinafter JUNG and further in view of Dominick et al. (US 20180032675) hereinafter Dominick.
Regarding claim 8, Raman in view of WEN, Gupta, and Ukis and further in view of JUNG teaches the limitations of claim 7 above and the combination further teaches network classifiers (JUNG, [0089]) and (Raman, [0076], [0102] and [0175]).
However, Raman in view of WEN and Gupta, and Ukis and further in view of JUNG do not explicitly disclose an automatic classification component that automatically associates the network hosts associated with a newly added imaging device to the network classifiers.
However, Dominick teaches an automatic classification component that automatically associates the network hosts associated with a newly added imaging device to the network classifiers (i.e. the scanner identification module 43 may search or query the hospital network to identify new machines or devices. For example, the scanner identification module may request information from each device connected to the network. Scanning devices may be queried to determine the type of device and version. In certain embodiments, new devices may transmit messages to the scanner identification module to identify the devices, [0048]).
Based on Raman in view of WEN, Gupta, and Ukis and JUNG and further in view of Dominick, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Dominick to the system of Raman, WEN, Gupta, Ukis and JUNG in order to constantly reevaluate the correct devices are communicating with the correct applications in the correct way, (Dominick [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYELE F WOLDEMARIAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5196. The examiner can normally be reached M_F 8:30AM-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, Joon H Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
/AW/
AYELE F. WOLDEMARIAM
Examiner
Art Unit 2447
2/2/2026
/SURAJ M JOSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447