DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to election/restriction filed on February 16, 2026. Invention I (claims 1-8) has been elected without traverse. Invention II (claims 9-15) and Invention III (claims 16-20) have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-8 have been examined and are currently pending.
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 .
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on February 16, 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on June 25, 2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Remove the colon in line 1 between the terms “comprising” and “instructions”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1 is directed to a nontransitory computer readable medium.
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations, “receive a query for Cross-Enterprise Document Sharing (XDS) content in a first document repository; search the first document repository for the XDS content based on the query; intercept XDS content results based on metadata of the XDS content satisfying the query before being provided in response to the query; and morph at least one attribute associated with the XDS content results in transit before providing the XDS content results to a graphical user interface or a second document repository.” are directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular the limitations, “intercept XDS content results based on metadata of the XDS content satisfying the query before being provided in response to the query; and morph at least one attribute associated with the XDS content results in transit before providing the XDS content results to a graphical user interface or a second document repository.” are interpreted/directed to as filtering content. The “intercept” and “morph” steps can be filtering the data and identifying an attribute such as a patient ID and adjusting it to fit a certain format such as adding or removing zeroes to a patient ID number. As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), the function of “filtering content” is directed to the abstract idea of managing personal behavior under the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The applicant has not shown or demonstrated any of the requirements described above under "integration into a practical application" under step 2A. Specifically, the applicant's limitations are not "integrated into a practical application" because they are adding words "apply it" with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field has not been shown or disclosed (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the applicant’s limitations are not “significantly more” because they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The applicant’s claimed limitations do not demonstrate an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, effecting a transformation or reduction of particular article to a different state or thing. The current application does not amount to 'significantly more' than the abstract idea as described above. The claim does not include additional elements or limitations individually or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the individual elements of processors, metadata, and graphical user interface amount to no more than implementing an idea with a computerized system and they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements taken in combination add nothing more than what is present when the elements are considered individually. Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the exception (i.e., abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
Dependent claims 2-8 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. The following dependent claims: dependent claim 2 recites processors and string, claim 3 recites processors, string, and graphical user interface, dependent claim 4 recites key object selection (KOS) and Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM), dependent claim 5 recites metadata and processors, dependent claim 7 recites processors, metadata, and DICOM content, and dependent claim 8 recites processors. Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-8 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Additionally, receiving data and searching a database is well-known routine and conventional as stated in the MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “storing and retrieving information in memory”. The concept of presenting information on a GUI is just a generic computer function. Therefore, the limitations are not “significantly more” under step 2B.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atanasiu et al. US Publication 20180189368 A1 in view Ho et al. US Publication 20110196886 A1.
Claim 1:
As per claim 1, Atanasiu teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising:
instructions that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (paragraph 0037 “The computing devices of system 100 each include one or more processors communicatively coupled to a computer readable storage medium having computer executable program instructions which, when executed by the processor(s), cause the processor(s) to perform the steps described herein…”):
receive a query for Cross-Enterprise Document Sharing (XDS) content in a first document repository (paragraphs 0039 and 0041 “At block 205, the user generates a query message for use in searching content from one or more repository systems such as, for example XDS infrastructure 115 and VNA 120. For example, a user may request, through client device 105, a search for an object, such as a document, folder, or submission set, stored in at least one of the repositories in XDS infrastructure 115 and VNA 120. Client device 105 may include a graphical user interface (GUI) that facilitates the entry of user inputs to client device 105. A software application may be executed on client device 105 that provides an interface with proxy server 110 for communicating with at least one of XDS infrastructure 115 and VNA 120.”);
search the first document repository for the XDS content based on the query (paragraphs 0041-0042 “…At block 210, proxy server 110 receives the query message from client device 115 and triggers a search for content that matches the query in each of the storage devices in XDS infrastructure 115 and VNA 120. Triggering a search for content at XDS infrastructure 115 may include sending an XDS query to one or more repositories in XDS infrastructure 115…”);
Atanasiu does not teach intercept XDS content results based on metadata of the XDS content satisfying the query before being provided in response to the query. However, Ho teaches Systems and Methods for Processing Consumer Queries in Different Languages for Clinical Documents and further teaches, “The document repository 16 and 20, which are operating in XDS standard may append additional XDS metadata to the manifest that describes the manifest. For example, the document repositories 16 and 20 may also add additional XDS metadata about the manifest such as the hash code and repository unique identification number.” (paragraph 0058) and “A document source may also convert clinical documents from one format to another prior to transmittal and/or storage. For example, an image document in JPEG format might be converted into PDF format prior to transmittal and/or storage. While clinical documents may be of varying formats, XDS systems generally only store PDF format documents, text documents, or patient manifests. Clinical documents that are not PDF, text or manifests may be converted to one of these formats.” (paragraph 0053). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Atanasiu to include intercept XDS content results based on metadata of the XDS content satisfying the query before being provided in response to the query as taught by Ho in order to change or modify the search results prior to being displayed.
Atanasiu does not teach and morph at least one attribute associated with the XDS content results in transit before providing the XDS content results to a graphical user interface or a second document repository. However, Ho teaches Systems and Methods for Processing Consumer Queries in Different Languages for Clinical Documents and further teaches, “The document consumer 12 will review the results of the query returned the consumer proxy 14. If metadata related to clinical documents is returned, the document consumer 12 will review the metadata and select clinical documents that it wishes to obtain. The selection is communicated to the consumer proxy 14 in the form of a retrieve request in the DICOM language.” (paragraph 0076) and “In step 108, method 100 obtains search results to the XDS query. The results may be obtained from the local memory and/or remote document registry. The search results may contain metadata associated with clinical documents that are not compatible with the document consumer. In such cases, the received metadata will be filtered such that only metadata associated with clinical documents that are compatible with or are interested in by the document consumer are selected.” (paragraph 0092). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Atanasiu to include morph at least one attribute associated with the XDS content results in transit before providing the XDS content results to a graphical user interface or a second document repository as taught by Ho in order to change or modify aspects of the search results prior to being displayed.
Claim 2:
As per claim 2, Atanasiu and Ho teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1 as described above and Atanasiu further teaches wherein the at least one attribute comprises a study description, and the instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
update a string of the study description to provide the XDS content results based on an updated string (paragraph 0046);
and associate the updated string with an EventCode for use with the second document repository, wherein the second document repository stores content that is in a different format than the XDS content (paragraphs 0046-0047).
Claim 3:
As per claim 3, Atanasiu and Ho teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1 as described above and Ho further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
remove at least a portion of a string from a study description of the at least one attribute before the XDS content results are provided to the graphical user interface or the second document repository in response to the query, wherein the second document repository comprises a content of a different format than the XDS content in the first document repository (paragraph 0114). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Atanasiu to include remove at least a portion of a string from a study description of the at least one attribute before the XDS content results are provided to the graphical user interface or the second document repository in response to the query, wherein the second document repository comprises a content of a different format than the XDS content in the first document repository as taught by Ho in order to facilitate the display of content on a graphical user interface.
Claim 4:
As per claim 4, Atanasiu and Ho teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1 as described above and Atanasiu further teaches wherein the second document repository stores content of a different format than the XDS content, the content of a different format including one or more key object selection (KOS) Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) documents (paragraphs 0020 and 0046-0047).
Claim 7:
As per claim 7, Atanasiu and Ho teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1 as described above and Atanasiu further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
map a patient ID associated with the metadata of the XDS content results of the first document repository or the second document repository with one or more other patient IDs associated with metadata of a second set of content comprising at least one of: the XDS content or DICOM content associated with a same patient information (paragraph 0046).
Claim 8:
As per claim 8, Atanasiu and Ho teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1 as described above and Atanasiu further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
map one or more patient IDs comprising a local patient ID associated with the second document repository to a patient ID associated with the first document repository, wherein the second document repository comprises content in a different format than the XDS content of the first document repository (paragraphs 0046-0047);
and in response to receiving the query, search the first document for the XDS content based on the local patient ID (paragraphs 0020 and 0046).
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atanasiu and Ho as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kohan et al. US Patent 8275850 B2.
Claim 5:
As per claim 5, Atanasiu and Ho teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1 as described above and Atanasiu further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
determine a patient ID comprising the attribute associated with the metadata of the XDS content (paragraphs 0045-0046);
and modify the patient ID that is associated with the metadata of the XDS content in the XDS content results to an updated patient ID for the second document repository (paragraphs 0045-0046).
Atanasiu and Ho do not teach remove non-significant digits of the patient ID. However, Kohan teaches a Multi-Source Longitudinal Patient-Level Data Encryption Process and further teaches, “…8.3. For the NCPDP Patient Id attribute the following standardization will be performed: 8.3.1. Data contents will be left justified 8.3.2. Leading zeros, blanks and spaces will be removed. Remaining contents left justified 8.3.2.1. Leading zeros in a patient id will be stripped off uniformly across for standardization purposes for data suppliers even if they are a valid piece of the cardholder's id…”(Appendix B in columns 15 and 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify Atanasiu to include remove non-significant digits of the patient ID as taught by Kohan in order to standardize elements of the patient ID.
Claim 6:
As per claim 6, Atanasiu, Ho and Kohan teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 5 as described above and Kohan further teaches wherein the non-significant digits comprise zeros in the patient ID to satisfy a predetermined length (sections 8.3 through 8.3.2.1 of Appendix B in columns 15 and 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Atanasiu to include wherein the non-significant digits comprise zeros in the patient ID to satisfy a predetermined length as taught by Kohan in order to standardize elements of the patient ID.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Veliah et al. US Patent 9639615 B1 Systems and Methods for Health Information Messages Archiving
Veliah discloses messages having patient healthcare information are exchanged between various healthcare IT systems. The messages are formatted according to various specific healthcare communication standards. The standards enable communication of the patient healthcare information among the healthcare IT systems. The messages are collected into a repository. Data mining is performed on the collected messages in order to make health-related findings.
Potter et a. US Publication 20110295873 A1 Methods and Apparatus to Enhance Queries in an Affinity Domain
Potter discloses methods and apparatus to enhance queries in an affinity domain are disclosed herein. An example method of providing a query service in an affinity domain includes receiving a query including one or more template identifiers that indicate conformance with a standard related to content of a document; generating an expression including the one or more template identifiers to define a search of a registry; performing the search of the registry according to the expression, wherein the search is configured to identify documents including the one or more template identifiers; and conveying the identified documents to an entity associated with the query.
Joseph US Publication 20080208625 A1 XDS Registry and Repository for Multiple Affinity Domains
Joseph discloses certain embodiments of the present invention provide a health information system. The health information system includes a hub, first affinity domain, and a second affinity domain. The hub includes a registry, a data repository, and a patient identity manager. Each of the first and second affinity domains includes a data sharing source and a data query source.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW L HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30-5:30 pm EST.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at (571)270-5096. 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.
/MATTHEW L HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682