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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claim 1, the limitation “a software application” in line 4 should be “the software application”.
Re claim 7, the limitation “reading a contract” in line 3 should be “reading the contract”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claim 1, the limitation “the access paths” in line 16 lacks of antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the examiner considers this limitation as any “access paths”.
Re claim 2, the limitation “the step of initializing execution” in line 3 lacks of antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the examiner considers this limitation as “a step of initializing execution”.
Re claim 4, the limitation “the image” in line 4 lacks of antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the examiner considers this limitation as “an image”.
Re claim 5, the limitation “the optional” in line 4 lacks of antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the examiner considers this limitation as “an optional”.
Re claim 8, the limitation “the processor unit” in line 2 lacks of antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the examiner considers this limitation as “a processor unit”.
Re claims 3, 6-7, and 9-10 are also rejected as these claims either depending on the rejected claim above or have same limitations identified in the rejected claim above.
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims do not fall within four categories under step 1 as:
Re claim 8, this claim is directing to a computer program product. However, the claim is drafted in an unclear manner whether the computer program product also includes the processor unit of a computer for executing the program instruction. As currently drafted, the computer program product only includes one or more program instructions which is merely software instructions or software per se. Thus, claim 8 is considered as software per se claim and is not eligible for patentability.
Re claim 9, this claim is directing to a computer-readable storage medium. However, neither the specification nor the claim is defining the computer-readable storage medium within the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Under the BRI, the computer-readable storage medium is interpreted to include both the transitory computer-readable storage medium as signal per se storage or non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as physical hardware storage, however the transitory computer-readable storage medium as signal per se is not patentable. Thus, claim 9 is considered as signal per se claim and is not eligible for patentability.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt et al. (U.S. 2004/0199572) in view of Kibble et al. (U.S. 2020/0312440).
Re claim 1, Hunt et al. disclose in Figures 1-23 method for integrating and executing a software application (e.g. abstract, Figures 2 and 5), said method including: a step of reading a contract dedicated to a software application that generates an item of output data based on an item of input data (e.g. Figures 2-4 and paragraphs [0049-0051, 314-316, and 0345-0347] wherein the SMD contains all the information related to developed application), said contract consisting of an item of digital content including: a unique identifier denoting said software application (e.g. paragraphs [0044 and 0239-0246] with the name/identifier); an input virtual directory intended to contain a value of the item of input data of the software application (e.g. paragraphs [0054, 0098, 0134-0136, 0152, and 0314-0316] with setting/input configuration); an output virtual directory intended to contain the value of the item of output data of the software application (e.g. paragraphs [0013, 0054, 0098, and 0183-0185] with deployed/output configuration setting); a step of writing the value of the item of input data of the software application to an input directory of the file system (e.g. paragraphs [0013, 0054, 0123-0127, and 0183-0185] with storing all information of the software/application); a step of triggering execution of the software application denoted by the unique identifier with as arguments the access paths to the input directory of the file system and to an output directory of said file system (e.g. paragraphs [0044, 0100, 0107-0112] with execution requests), said access paths being respectively associated with the input and output virtual directories read from said contract (e.g. paragraphs [0341-0347] with the flow paths); a step of reading the value of the item of output data of the software application from the output directory of the file system (e.g. paragraphs [0315-0316, 0341-0344, and 0501] with reading from previous setting). Hunt et al. fail to disclose designed to be implemented by a medical imaging platform operating a file system. However, Kibble et al. disclose designed to be implemented by a medical imaging platform operating a file system (e.g. abstract, Figure 2, and paragraphs [0001 and 0008] with medical imagining implementation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add designed to be implemented by a medical imaging platform operating a file system as seen in Kibble et al.’s invention into Hunt et al.’s invention because the combination would enable to efficiently develop and maintain software cycle for the medical devices/platforms.
Re claim 2, Hunt et al. in view of Kibble et al. disclose for which the contract includes a value of an operating parameter of the software application and for which the step of initializing execution of said software application is adapted to include as argument the value of said operating parameter (e.g. Hunt et al. – Figure 11 and paragraphs [0054, 0070, and 0078-0079] with setting default/initial values for certain parameters/configurations).
Re claim 3, Hunt et al. in view of Kibble et al. disclose a step of loading the software application and the contract in a memory of the software platform (e.g. Hunt et al. – abstract, Figures 2-5, and paragraphs [0014 and 0044-0046] with deployment).
Re claim 4, Hunt et al. in view of Kibble et al. disclose for which the software application adopts the form of a computer container, the unique identifier denoting said software application comprised in said contract expressing the image of said computer container (e.g. Hunt et al. – paragraphs [0051-0053] with container deployment).
Re claim 5, Hunt et al. in view of Kibble et al. disclose for which the input virtual directory intended to contain the item of input data of the software application is associated in the contract with an attribute specifying the optional or mandatory nature of said item of input data and for which, when such an attribute shows an optional nature of said item of input data (e.g. Hunt et al. – paragraphs [0246-0249] with optional setting as true or fault), the writing step thereof is implemented only if such an item of input data is available for the medical imaging platform (e.g. Hunt et al. – paragraph [0068] with existence settings and Kibble et al. – abstract, Figure 2, and paragraphs [0001 and 0008] with medical imagining implementation).
Re claim 6, Hunt et al. in view of Kibble et al. disclose for which the output virtual directory intended to contain the value of the item of output data of the software application is associated in the contract with a typing attribute of said output (e.g. Hunt et al. – paragraphs [0245-0249]) and for which the step of reading the value of the item of output data of the software application consists of associating said value of said typing attribute with the value of said item of output data (e.g. Hunt et al. – paragraphs [0315-0316, 0341-0344, and 0501] with reading settings).
Re claim 7, Hunt et al. in view of Kibble et al. disclose for which the contract is encoded prior to its integration in the platform and for which the step of reading a contract includes a prior sub-step of decoding said contract (e.g. Hunt et al. – paragraphs [0049-0050] and Kibble et al. – paragraph [0069]).
Re claim 8, it is a computer program product claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as drafted in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 9, it is a computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as drafted in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 10, it is a medical imaging platform claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as drafted in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0019446 discloses a method includes providing a configuration tool on a computer. The method further includes accessing a configuration file that includes configuration settings, wherein the configuration file is a plain text file.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0312440 discloses a method comprises: receiving, at a web service engine, a web services request from a remote web client for one or more Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) objects; generating a DICOM Message Service Element (DIMSE) request from the web services request, wherein generating the DIMSE service request includes parsing a modified base URL that includes information for a DIMSE service request, the modified URL being compliant with a standard that specifies a web-based service for accessing and presenting DICOM objects; sending the DIMSE service request to a server; receiving a response to the DIMSE service request from the server.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0137431 discloses a processor to execute the processor-executable process steps to cause the system to: present a user interface on a display, the user interface including one or more user-entry fields to build a model, user-entry fields is associated with a selection of big data or small data for use with the model; receive at least one data source in a user-entry field associated with the model; determine if data in the data source includes big data or small data; and in response to the determination of big data or small data in the data source, execute the model with data from the data source in a big data or small data execution environment.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0034771 discloses a network portal system includes a web-top manager and a universal content broker system. The web-top manager is configured to receive a content request from a user device, where the content request includes a content provider identifier. The universal content broker system is coupled to the web-top manager.
U.S. Patent No. 6,601,233 discloses a plurality of logical business components in a business are first defined with each business component having a plurality of capabilities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chat C Do whose telephone number is (571)272-3721. The examiner can normally be reached {M - Th} 4:30am - 2:30pm.
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, Dede Zecher can be reached at 571-272-0800. 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.
/Chat C Do/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights