DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 31 July 2026. Claims 1-19 were previously canceled. Claims 20, 26-27, 30-31, and 35 were amended. Claims 20-39 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 20-39 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims 20-39 fall within one or more statutory categories. Claims 20-29 fall within the category of a process. Claims 30 and 32-35 fall within the category of a machine. Claims 31 and 36-39 fall within the category of a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claims 20-39 recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 20 recites:
for each of a plurality of parts of [an image] study:
obtaining … a study instance unique identifier from the part of the [image] study that uniquely identifies the [image] study;
generating … an obfuscated study instance unique identifier …;
de-identifying … the part of the [image] study by at least replacing the study instance unique identifier in the part of the [image] study with the obfuscated study instance unique identifier;
extracting … protected health information (PHI) from the part of the [image] study;
storing … the PHI extracted from the part of the [image] study; and
storing … at least one association among (a) the study instance unique identifier, (b) the obfuscated study instance unique identifier and (c) the part of the [image] study.
Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “storing and de-identifying patient records,” which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity. “Storing and de-identifying patient records” is considered to be a method of organizing human activity because it is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims includes the interaction between a healthcare provider and a patient (through patient data).
Additionally, the claims are considered to be directed to a mental process because they include concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims include the observation and evaluation of image studies.
Representative claim 20 also recites:
generating … a hash based on the study instance unique identifier.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these elements are directed to “generating a hash,” which is an abstract idea because it is a mathematical concept. “Generating a hash” is considered to be a mathematical concept because it is an example of mathematical calculation using a mathematical formula.
The limitations that recite a method of organizing human activity and the limitations that recite mathematical concepts are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 20 recites the following additional element(s):
[the method is performed] by at least one processor;
[the study is a] DICOM (digital imaging and communications in medicine) study.
The additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application. The additional element merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the image study being a DICOM study generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 20 does not include additional elements, considered individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s), individually and in combination, merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the image study being a DICOM study generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). This is not enough to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 20 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 21 recites the method of claim 20, comprising:
receiving, by at least one processor, a request for PHI associated with the obfuscated study instance unique identifier; and
in response to the request for PHI data:
identifying, by the at least one processor, the DICOM study as being associated with the obfuscated study instance unique identifier;
for each part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study:
identifying, by the at least one processor, the stored PHI associated with the part of the DICOM study based on the at least one association between the study instance unique identifier, the obfuscated study instance unique identifier and the part of the DICOM study;
extracting, by the at least one processor, the PHI stored and associated with the part of the DICOM study; and
merging, by the at least one processor, the extracted PHI with previously extracted PHI associated with other parts of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study; and
providing, by at least one processor, the merged PHI for the DICOM study.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 21 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 22 recites the method of claim 20, comprising:
receiving, by the at least one processor, each part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study as a separate upload and different times.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 20 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 22 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 23 recites the method of claim 20, wherein:
the merging the extracted PHI with previously extracted PHI associated with other parts of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes:
determining a chronological order of when each part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study were uploaded; and
in the merged PHI for the DICOM study, overriding, by the at least one processor, previously extracted PHI with corresponding subsequently uploaded PHI.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 23 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 24 recites the method of claim 22, comprising:
receiving, by the at least one processor, a query identifying one part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study, the query including parameters for searching the identified one part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study; and
in response to the query:
searching, by the at least one processor, for PHI associated with the identified one part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study based on the parameters; and
providing, by the at least one processor, PHI associated with the identified one part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study based on the parameters.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 24 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 25 recites the method of claim 20, wherein:
at least one part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes DICOM metadata and at least another part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes updates to the same DICOM metadata.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 25 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 26 recites the method of claim 20, wherein:
at least one part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes DICOM metadata.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 26 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 27 recites the method of claim 26, wherein:
at least another part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes additions to the DICOM metadata for the DICOM study.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 27 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 28 recites the method of claim 20, wherein:
at least one part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes a patient age associated with the DICOM study and at least another part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes updates to the patient age associated with the DICOM study.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 20 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 28 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 29 recites the method of claim 20, wherein:
at least one part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes series level data for the DICOM study and at least another part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes additional series level data for the DICOM study.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 29 is ineligible.
Claims 30-39 are parallel in nature to claims 20-29. Accordingly claims 30-39 are rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
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.
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.
Claims 20-27, 29-37, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dormer et al. (U.S. 2017/0076043), hereinafter “Dormer,” in view of Vesper et al. (U.S. 2011/0110568), hereinafter “Vesper.”
Regarding claim 20, Dormer discloses a method of operating a processor-based system associated with an organization, the method comprising:
for each of a plurality of parts of a DICOM (digital imaging and communications in medicine) (See Dormer Fig. 12 and [0351] the system performs the de-identification and upload on multiple extracted DICOM files.) study:
obtaining, by at least one processor, a study instance unique identifier from the part of the DICOM study that uniquely identifies the DICOM study (See Dormer Fig. 12 and [0352] the system locates a study instance UID. This is understood to uniquely identify the study.);
generating, by the at least one processor, a hash based on the study instance unique identifier (See Dormer [0318] The anonymization service receives raw DICOM files, anonymizing the raw DICOM files by removing any plain text PHI, and replaces the plain text PHI with a hash of the PHI (e.g. all PHI fields in the DICOM images are identified and converted to salted hashes). [0351] the system de-identifies the PHI in the DICOM files. [0352] the StudyIntanceUID is replaced with an obfuscated value.);
generating, by the at least one processor, an obfuscated study instance unique identifier based on the generated hash (See Dormer [0352] the StudyIntanceUID is replaced with an obfuscated value in the de-identification act. [0318] The anonymization service receives raw DICOM files, anonymizing the raw DICOM files by removing any plain text PHI, and replaces the plain text PHI with a hash of the PHI (e.g. all PHI fields in the DICOM images are identified and converted to salted hashes).);
de-identifying, by the at least one processor, the part of the DICOM study by at least replacing the study instance unique identifier in the part of the DICOM study with the obfuscated study instance unique identifier (See Dormer [0352] the StudyIntanceUID is replaced with an obfuscated value.);
extracting, by the at least one processor, protected health information (PHI) from the part of the DICOM study (See Dormer [0351] the de-identification service extracts PHI from the DICOM files.);
storing, by the at least one processor, the PHI extracted from the part of the DICOM study (See Dormer [0352] All extracted PHI data may be collected and stored for every DICOM file and may be sent to the storage service at the end of the process. See also [0354].); and
storing, by the at least one processor, at least one association among (a) the study instance unique identifier, (b) the obfuscated study instance unique identifier … (See Dormer Fig. 12 and [0352] The de-identification act replaces a StudyInstanceUID with an obfuscated value. The original data is linked with the study sent to the ASP system by this value. This is a unique mapping between StudyInstanceUID and the obfuscated UID. See also [0353]. [0355] The data may be indexed by an obfuscated StudyInstanceUID which provides the link with the data stored by the ASP system).
Dormer does not disclose:
[the stored association includes] (c) the part of the DICOM study.
Vesper teaches:
[the stored association includes] (c) the part of the DICOM study (See Vesper [0086] system uses central index and harvester tags to link PHI with anonymized DICOM studies. See also [0173] and Fig. 18. [0386] the system associates the study with it’s individual parts that are stored anonymously throughout the system. Therefore, the system stores an association between the Study ID, anonymized data, and the individual parts of the study.).
The system of Vesper is applicable to the disclosure of Dormer as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to uploading and aggregating DICOM image studies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dormer to include query and sorting functions as taught by Vesper. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Dormer in order to provide secure system for accessing and moving those records among authorized parties (see Vesper [0006]).
Regarding claim 21, Dormer in view of Vesper discloses the method of claim 20 as discussed above. Dormer further discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by at least one processor, a request for PHI associated with the obfuscated study instance unique identifier (See Dormer [0369] upon selection of a study from the worklist, the system sends a request to the ASP system to load a study. The system sends a request to the PHI system for PHI data associated with the selected study.); and
in response to the request for PHI data: identifying, by the at least one processor, the DICOM study as being associated with the obfuscated study instance unique identifier (See Dormer Fig. 12 and [0352] The de-identification act replaces a StudyInstanceUID with an obfuscated value. The original data is linked with the study sent to the ASP system by this value. This is a unique mapping between StudyInstanceUID and the obfuscated UID. See also [0353]. [0355] The data may be indexed by an obfuscated StudyInstanceUID which provides the link with the data stored by the ASP system.);
for each part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study: identifying, by the at least one processor, the stored PHI associated with the part of the DICOM study based on the at least one association between the study instance unique identifier, the obfuscated study instance unique identifier and the part of the DICOM study (See Dormer Fig. 12 and [0352] The de-identification act replaces a StudyInstanceUID with an obfuscated value. The original data is linked with the study sent to the ASP system by this value. This is a unique mapping between StudyInstanceUID and the obfuscated UID. See also [0353]. [0355] The data may be indexed by an obfuscated StudyInstanceUID which provides the link with the data stored by the ASP system.);
extracting, by the at least one processor, the PHI stored and associated with the part of the DICOM study (See Dormer Fig. 14A and [0369] system sends the PHI data for the selected study to be merged with the de-identified study data. See also [0370].); and
merging, by the at least one processor, the extracted PHI with previously extracted PHI associated with other parts of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study (See Dormer Fig. 14A and [0370] system sends the PHI data for the selected study to be merged with the de-identified study data. See also [0369].); and
providing, by at least one processor, the merged PHI for the DICOM study (See Dormer [0370] using the process, the user has access to the full study data (no longer de-identified).).
Regarding Claim 22, Dormer in view of Vesper discloses the method of claim 20 as discussed above. Dormer does not further disclose a method, comprising:
receiving, by the at least one processor, each part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study as a separate upload and different times.
Vesper teaches:
receiving, by the at least one processor, each part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study as a separate upload and different times (See Vesper [0229] The discrete DICOM images are generally not processed or persisted as image studies, but instead they can be maintained as individual DICOM images allowing each image to be separately identifiable. [0249] DICOM images are not assembled into image studies on the gateway device. Rather, they can be dynamically uploaded to the Internet to the medical information network in the general order in which they were received off the wire. This eliminates the need for timers or other DICOM receiving techniques that attempt to aggregate discrete images into complete image studies. See also [0341].).
The system of Vesper is applicable to the disclosure of Dormer as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to uploading and aggregating DICOM image studies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dormer to include query and sorting functions as taught by Vesper. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Dormer in order to provide secure system for accessing and moving those records among authorized parties (see Vesper [0006]).
Regarding claim 23, Dormer in view of Vesper in view of Vesper discloses the method of claim 22 as discussed above. Dormer does not further disclose a method, wherein:
the merging the extracted PHI with previously extracted PHI associated with other parts of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes:
determining a chronological order of when each part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study were uploaded; and
in the merged PHI for the DICOM study, overriding, by the at least one processor, previously extracted PHI with corresponding subsequently uploaded PHI.
Vesper teaches:
the merging the extracted PHI with previously extracted PHI associated with other parts of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes:
determining a chronological order of when each part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study were uploaded (See Vesper [0226] All actions and events that occur between the main entities in the database are logged, as described above. An event record will contain the time the event occurred, the IDs of the entities involved in the event, the type of event and the elapsed time of the event.
[0349] serial DICOM image ID metadata which sequentially numbers each image in each series of an image study. [0384] Such a study structure or schema can be created and updated every time a DICOM image is added to a repository.); and
in the merged PHI for the DICOM study, overriding, by the at least one processor, previously extracted PHI with corresponding subsequently uploaded PHI (See Vesper [0011] If a study update is modifying data in an existing study, perhaps textual data in the DICOM header that was incorrectly entered by a technician, now there is a possibility that previously processed DICOM data was in error and can be corrected. This means that any downstream device needs to update the errant DICOM files with the corrected ones. [0182] patient data can be updated by the system upon appropriate authenticated request.
[0303] The central index can use the DICOM header information to determine if the image is new or it is an update to an existing image.).
The system of Vesper is applicable to the disclosure of Dormer as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to uploading and aggregating DICOM image studies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dormer to include query and sorting functions as taught by Vesper. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Dormer in order to provide secure system for accessing and moving those records among authorized parties (see Vesper [0006]).
Regarding claim 24, Dormer in view of Vesper in view of Vesper discloses the method of claim 22 as discussed above. Dormer does not further disclose a method, comprising:
receiving, by the at least one processor, a query identifying one part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study, the query including parameters for searching the identified one part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study; and
in response to the query: searching, by the at least one processor, for PHI associated with the identified one part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study based on the parameters; and
providing, by the at least one processor, PHI associated with the identified one part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study based on the parameters.
Vesper teaches:
receiving, by the at least one processor, a query identifying one part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study, the query including parameters for searching the identified one part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study (See Vesper [0351] The acquisition of prior images is achieved by querying the DICOM metadata repository with constraints sufficient to identify the relevant studies for a given clinical use case. See also [0335]-[0337].); and
in response to the query: searching, by the at least one processor, for PHI associated with the identified one part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study based on the parameters (See Vesper [0392] to complete the contents of the imaging study, an authenticated browser call to the PHI repository can be made and the PHI for this study returned to the browser and displayed in the appropriate image study context.); and
providing, by the at least one processor, PHI associated with the identified one part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study based on the parameters (See Vesper [0392] to complete the contents of the imaging study, an authenticated browser call to the PHI repository can be made and the PHI for this study returned to the browser and displayed in the appropriate image study context.).
The system of Vesper is applicable to the disclosure of Dormer as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to uploading and aggregating DICOM image studies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dormer to include query and sorting functions as taught by Vesper. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Dormer in order to provide secure system for accessing and moving those records among authorized parties (see Vesper [0006]).
Regarding claim 25, Dormer in view of Vesper discloses the method of claim 20 as discussed above. Dormer further discloses a method, wherein:
at least one part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes DICOM metadata (See Dormer [0006] the system uses the DICOM standard which include DICOM file metadata.).
Dormer does not disclose:
at least another part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes updates to the same DICOM metadata.
Vesper teaches:
at least another part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes updates to the same DICOM metadata (See Vesper [0267] The record can be provided through on demand processing. On demand processing can include providing study catalogs, anonymized DICOM images, and enriching the metadata. Enriching the metadata is understood to include updates or additions to the metadata. See also [0335].).
The system of Vesper is applicable to the disclosure of Dormer as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to uploading and aggregating DICOM image studies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dormer to include query and sorting functions as taught by Vesper. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Dormer in order to provide secure system for accessing and moving those records among authorized parties (see Vesper [0006]).
Regarding claim 26, Dormer in view of Vesper discloses the method of claim 20 as discussed above. Dormer further discloses a method, wherein:
at least one part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes DICOM metadata (See Dormer [0006] the system uses the DICOM standard which include DICOM file metadata.).
Regarding claim 27, Dormer in view of Vesper discloses the method of claim 26 as discussed above. Dormer does not further disclose a method, wherein:
at least another part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes additions to the DICOM metadata for the DICOM study.
Vesper teaches:
at least another part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes additions to the DICOM metadata for the DICOM study (See Vesper [0267] The record can be provided through on demand processing. On demand processing can include providing study catalogs, anonymized DICOM images, and enriching the metadata. Enriching the metadata is understood to include updates or additions to the metadata. See also [0335].).
The system of Vesper is applicable to the disclosure of Dormer as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to uploading and aggregating DICOM image studies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dormer to include query and sorting functions as taught by Vesper. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Dormer in order to provide secure system for accessing and moving those records among authorized parties (see Vesper [0006]).
Regarding claim 29, Dormer in view of Vesper discloses the method of claim 20 as discussed above. Dormer further discloses a method, wherein:
at least one part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes series level data for the DICOM study and at least another part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes additional series level data for the DICOM study (See Dormer [0355] The PHI data collected may be organized in a document with two levels information, a study level and a series level. The data may be indexed by an obfuscated StudyInstanceUID which provides the link with the data stored by the ASP system.).
Regarding claims 30 and 32-35, Dormer in view of Vesper discloses the method of claims 20-24 as discussed above. Claims 30 and 32-35 recite a system that performs a method that is substantially similar to the method of claims 20-24. Accordingly, claims 30 and 32-35 are rejected based on the same analysis.
Regarding claim 31, 36-37, and 39, Dormer in view of Vesper discloses the method of claims 20, 25-26, and 29 as discussed above. Claims 31, 36-37, and 39 recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions to perform a method that is substantially similar to the method of claims 20, 25-26, and 29. Accordingly, claims 31, 36-37, and 39 are rejected based on the same analysis.
Claims 28 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dormer et al. (U.S. 2017/0076043), hereinafter “Dormer,” in view of Vesper et al. (U.S. 2011/0110568), hereinafter “Vesper,” and further in view of Stark et al. (U.S. 2016/0246687), hereinafter “Stark.”
Regarding claim 28, Dormer in view of Vesper discloses the method of claim 20 as discussed above. Dormer further discloses a method, comprising:
at least one part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes a patient age associated with the DICOM study and at least another part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes updates to the patient age associated with the DICOM study.
stark teaches:
at least one part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes a patient age associated with the DICOM study and at least another part of the plurality of parts of the DICOM study includes updates to the patient age associated with the DICOM study (See Stark [0035] the content metadata is DICOM metadata. [0036] that meta data can include patient age, as well as changes to patient age.).
The system of Stark is applicable to the disclosure of Dormer as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to aggregation and storage of medical imaging files. . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dormer to include DICOM parameters as taught by Stark. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Dormer in order to create a faster and more efficient method of updating existing DICOM objects (see Stark [0009]).
Regarding claim 38, Dormer in view of Vesper discloses the method of claim 28 as discussed above. Claim 38 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions to perform a method that is substantially similar to the method of claim 28. Accordingly, claim 38 is rejected based on the same analysis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 July 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, under Step 2A Prong One (see Applicant Remarks pages 10-11). This is not persuasive. First, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims includes the interaction between a healthcare provider and a patient (through patient data). The fact that the patient data is specifically DICOM images does not preclude it from being an abstract idea, but at most generally links it to a particular technical field (as an additional element under Step 2A). Additionally, the claims are considered to be directed to a mental process because they include concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims include the observation and evaluation of image studies. Finally, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, generating a hash is an abstract idea because it is a mathematical concept. “Generating a hash” is considered to be a mathematical concept because it is an example of mathematical calculation using a mathematical formula. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
Next, Applicant argues that the claims recite a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two (see Applicant Remarks pages 11-12). This is not persuasive. The additional elements present in the claims merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the image study being a DICOM study generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims are not directed to a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Finally, Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more that the abstract idea under Step 2B (see Applicant Remarks page 12). This is not persuasive. The additional elements present in the claims merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the image study being a DICOM study generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims do not recite significantly more under Step 2B.
Applicant's arguments filed 31 July 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of the claims, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of previously uncited portions of the Vesper reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Beckers et al. (U.S. 2016/0338613) teaches a system and method for MRI image processing and analysis, using de-identification and DICOM metadata.
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 BENJAMIN L HANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/B.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights