DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11, 13-21, 23, 25, 27, and 29-32 are pending.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: recites DICOM without its proper connotation.
Claim 11, is objected as depending on a cancelled claim 10. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
4. The drawings have been reviewed and are accepted as being in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11, 13-16, 17-21, 23, 25, 27, and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claims are directed to a process/method and system for file tagging and storing data from a set of files.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1, recites “select a tag associated with a file; determine a tag attribute; select one of a plurality of fields of a field portion of a document of the file” wherein the one of the plurality of fields is selected based on the determined tag attribute. These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting "by one database server" “a system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
For example, identifying common data or metadata withing a sample of files... in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper looking at the files and comparing the information; and examine the common data in the documents and doing an association.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “selecting based on a determined tag attribute". The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. These limitations amount to a data gathering step and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation “stored data comprising a set of files, at least some of the files comprising metadata; and at least one server configured to: and store the single string in the selected one of the plurality of fields” is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner consistent with the absence of an inventive concept. This step is part of the underlying abstract idea and do not serve to narrow or define the additional technological elements of the claim in any inventive way. [See MPEP 2106.05; Also see Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., (the claims embrace the abstract idea of using a marking)].
Claim 2, dependent of Claim 1, recites “wherein the tags comprise DICOM tags.”. The additional limitation elaborates on the abstract idea, “the tags being obtain on a well-known medical tag standard, when is well-understood routine and conventional.
Claim 3, recites “select a file; and identify at least one tag associated with the selected file, wherein the tag is selected from the at least one tag associated with the selected file.” The additional limitations of “selecting and identifying”, is considered to be insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 4, recites, “wherein the tag comprises a key-value pair.” The additional limitation elaborates on the abstract idea, “comparing” is well-understood routine and conventional.
Claim 5, dependent of Claim 1, recites “wherein determining the tag attribute comprises determining that the key-value pair comprises a string, and wherein generating a single string representing the tag comprises: identifying a key and the tag value of the tag; and combining the key of the tag value of the tag into a single string and wherein the one of the plurality of fields of the field portion of the document of the file corresponds to tags comprising a string” The additional limitations of “identifying a key an the tag value” is nothing more than comparing similar data, considered to be insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 7, dependent of Claim 1, recites “wherein the key of the tag 7. comprises a group and an element wherein each of the group and the element comprises a 2-byte number and wherein the tag value comprises a string represented by at least a 2-byte integer number.” The additional limitation of setting at least a 2-byte number is considered to be insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
As per Claims 17-21, 23, 25, 27, and 28, being the method claims corresponding to the system claims 1-5, 7,and 9, respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection of the rejections of Claims 1-5, 7, and 9.
As per Claims 11, 13-16, 27, and 29-32, are rejected as being depending on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9, 17-21, 23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (US 2008/0005086), in view of Colaco (US 9,298,730), hereinafter “Moore” and “Colaco” respectively.
As per Claim 1, Moore discloses:
A system for transforming and compressing tags, the system comprising: at least one database server comprising stored data comprising a set of files, at least some of the files comprising metadata; (Par [0009], “The one or more tags specify one or more attributes of the item “ and par [0117], “set of associated files (FileSet)…”) and at least one server configured to: select a tag associated with a file; (Par [0051], “ The selection of the best available route between two nodes on a network may be done using an algorithm, such as the Dijkstra shortest path algorithm”) determine a tag attribute; (par [0117] The additional elements may, without limitation, comprise the following: clinical note (ClinicalNote), biochemistry result (BiochemistryResult), DICOM compliant MRI image (DCMRI), keywords (Keywords), license (License), change log (ChangeLog), route trace (RouteTrace), permalink (Permalink), time (Time), shopping cart (ShoppingCart), video (Video), device (Device), friend (Friend), market (Market), downstream processing directive (DPDirective), set of associated files (FileSet), generate a single string representing the tag; (Par [0072], “Permalinks typically consist of a string of characters which represent the date and time of posting, and some (system dependent) identifier (which includes a base URL, and often identifies the author, subscriber, or department which initially authored the item).” And par [0083], “More generally, data services 410 may include any functions associated with data including storing, manipulating, retrieving, transforming, verifying, authenticating, formatting, reformatting, tagging, linking, hyperlinking, reporting, viewing…”) select one of a plurality of fields of a field portion of a document of the file, (Par [0126], “for data feeds or on full text of items within data fields.” And par [0135], “input field for user input of one or more search terms. There may also be one or more checkboxes or other controls for additional search parameters. For example, a user may select whether to search titles only”) wherein the one of the plurality of fields is selected based on the determined tag attribute; (Par [0144], “In tag-level encryption of fields of data delimited within a message, similar encryption techniques may be employed. By using tag-level encryption, security may be controlled for specific elements of a message and may vary from field to field..” and Par [0155], “For example, a tag may identify an attribute type such as time, source, title, keyword, or the like, with the attribute value delimited by the corresponding tags.”) and store the single string in the selected one of the plurality of fields. (Par [0061], “By way of example, and not of limitation, medical records may be stored as OPML files, either within the database or in a distributed fashion among numerous locations across the OPML network.” And
Moore discloses various values for tagging the medical information and string of information related to it.
However not specifically a single string, Colaco discloses the tags being key-value pairs including different information see (Col. 2, lines 40-67), “using a DICOM library. During conversion, computer readable program code opens the DICOM image file and then loops through all tags for the key-value pairs of meta information to store the pairs in a JSON object as text values”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Colaco specifically a specific tagging into the method of Moore to take advantage on applying a technique to apply a pair complying with a DICOM indexing. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement using a medical tag to provide the best form of organization and specific tagging.
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and Moore further disclose: wherein the tags comprise DICOM tags. (Par [0117-0118], DICOM compliant and tags).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and Moore further disclose: wherein the at least one server is further configured to: select a file; and identify at least one tag associated with the selected file, wherein the tag is selected from the at least one tag associated with the selected file. (Par [0020], “…locating a document on a network, the document may include a metadata attribute delimited by one or more tags…”).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and Moore further disclose: wherein the tag comprises a key-value pair. (Par [0116], “key value (KeyValue), DSA key value (DSAKeyvalue), RSA key value (RSAKeyValue),” and Par [0172], “ A number of certificate-based technologies are known and may be usefully employed with certificate-based search as described herein. For example, Public Key Infrastructure (using asymmetric public/private key pairs)”).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 4 is incorporated and Colaco further disclose: wherein determining the tag attribute comprises determining that the key-value pair comprises a string, and wherein generating a single string representing the tag comprises: identifying a key and the tag value of the tag; and combining the key of the tag value of the tag into a single string and wherein the one of the plurality of fields of the field portion of the document of the file corresponds to tags comprising a string. (Col. 2, lines 32-40, “(4) A DICOM image contains meta information regarding the patient, medical modality, type and date of examination, etc. This meta information is stored in the DICOM image as key-value schema. Values may be of several types including string, integer and floating point or an array of these types. Keys and values are stored within DICOM images in binary form. Meta information needs to be provided to a user viewing the DICOM image.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Colaco specifically a specific tagging into the method of Moore to take advantage on applying a technique to apply a pair complying with a DICOM indexing. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement using a medical tag to provide the best form of organization and specific tagging.
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated and Colaco further disclose: wherein the key of the tag comprises a group and an element wherein each of the group and the element comprises a 2-byte number and wherein the tag value comprises a string represented by at least a 2-byte integer number. (Col. 3, lines30-44, “(4) A DICOM image contains meta information regarding the patient, medical modality, type and date of examination, etc. This meta information is stored in the DICOM image as key-value schema. Values may be of several types including string, integer and floating point or an array of these types. Keys and values are stored within DICOM images in binary form. Meta information needs to be provided to a user viewing the DICOM image.” And see table 2, for different byte values).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Colaco specifically a specific tagging into the method of Moore to take advantage on applying a technique to apply a pair complying with a DICOM indexing. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would implement using a medical tag to provide the best form of organization and specific tagging.
As per Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 4 is incorporated and Colaco further disclose: wherein determining the tag attribute comprises determining that the key-value pair comprises a number, and determining that the number is at least one of: a signed number; an unsigned number; and a floating point number, and wherein the plurality of fields comprises a first field for signed numbers, a second field for unsigned numbers, and a third field for floating point numbers wherein determining the tag attribute further comprises determining a size of the tag. (Col. 2, lines 32-40, “(4) A DICOM image contains meta information regarding the patient, medical modality, type and date of examination, etc. This meta information is stored in the DICOM image as key-value schema. Values may be of several types including string, integer and floating point or an array of these types. Keys and values are stored within DICOM images in binary form. Meta information needs to be provided to a user viewing the DICOM image.”).
As per Claims 17-21, 23, and 25, being the method claims corresponding to the system claims 1-5, 7, and 9, respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection of the rejections of Claims 1-5, 7, and 9 and further Moore discloses: (Par [0081]).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 11, 13-16, 27, and 29-32 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hill; Derek Lionel Glendon (US-20110188718-A1), relates to IMAGE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS.
Pennefather; Peter (US-20140122491-A1), relates to SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTHENTICATING AND AIDING IN INDEXING OF AND SEARCHING FOR ELECTRONIC FILES.
Colaco; Vernon ( US-2014/0010421-B2), relates to SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR VIEWING MEDICAL IMAGES
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3158. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am to 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/ANGELICA RUIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
December 27, 2025