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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(o) because they lack suitable descriptive legends. Specifically, Figure 3 contain a series of unlabeled blank boxes, which diminishes the utility of the drawings and makes them unnecessarily difficult to understand; descriptive titles of the otherwise blank boxes and/or an item key would improve the utility of said figures. Drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 – 12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitations “an input unit configured to receive”, “a processing unit configured to select” and “an output unit configured to transmit” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, because said limitations use the non-structural term “unit” coupled with functional language “configured to receive”, “select”, and “transmit”, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, claim 1 is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Though pages 9 – 10 and Fig. 2 of Applicant’s specification broadly discuss and illustrate the claimed units, Applicant is reminded that if a claim function is a specific function to be performed by a special purpose computer, then the corresponding structure in the specification must be more than a mere reference to a general purpose computer, microprocessor, specialized computer, or an unidentified component of a computer system, software, logic, code or black box element. If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph (e.g., by incorporating sufficient structure into the claim language to achieve the claimed functionality), or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). Regarding claim 2 - 12, said claims suffer from issues corresponding to those of claim 1. In order to perform a complete examination, the above claims have been interpreted broadly.
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 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 14, said claim is directed to a “computer program product”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer program product includes forms of transitory propagating signals in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer program product. A transitory propagating signal is not a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. Applicant’s recitation of a “computer program product” thus appears to include non-statutory, transitory embodiments. A claim drawn to such a computer-readable storage medium may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection by further specifying that the claim is limited to “non-transitory” media, directing the claim to a “storage device” rather than a “program product”, or specifying that said product “does not include a signal”.
Regarding claim 15, said claim is directed to a “computer-readable data carrier”. Like claim 14, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable data carrier includes forms of transitory propagating signals in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of “computer-readable data carrier”. A transitory propagating signal is not a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. Applicant’s recitation of a “computer-readable data carrier” thus appears to include non-statutory, transitory embodiments.
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 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.
Claims 1 – 3 and 13 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum (US-20130259348-A1) in view of Bialecki (US-20220351832-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Blum shows an apparatus for transferring medical data from a clinical-data infrastructure to a cloud-service provider, the apparatus comprising: an input unit configured to receive, at the clinical-data infrastructure, medical data to be sent to the cloud-service provider with at least one available cloud service for analyzing the medical data ([34,46-47,55]), a processing unit configured to select a data reduction algorithm from one or more data reduction algorithms based on a data reduction requirement of the at least one available cloud service ([38,51]), and to apply the selected data reduction algorithm to the medical data to generate reduced medical data, which fulfils the data input requirement of the at least one data analysis algorithm ([21-22,27]); and an output unit configured to transmit the reduced medical data to the cloud-service provider (Abstract, [11-16]). Blum does show use of cloud services ([21]), but does not show: wherein the at least one available service comprises at least one data analysis algorithm configured to analyze the medical data, and the at least one data analysis algorithm has a data input requirement. Bialecki shows wherein the at least one available service comprises at least one data analysis algorithm configured to analyze the medical data, and the at least one data analysis algorithm has a data input requirement ([45-48,58]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the medical imaging sharing techniques of Blum with the medical analysis of Bialecki in order better ensure the imaging data of Blum is linked to a compatible evaluation algorithm, helping ensure orderly and accurate processing of the medical data common to each invention.
Regarding claim 2, the above combination further shows wherein the medical data comprises one or more of: Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine, DICOM, data (Blum, [18]); Neuroimaging Informatics Technology Initiative, NIfTI, data; and Data in vendor specific proprietary data formats.
Regarding claim 3, the above combination further shows wherein the one or more data reduction algorithms comprise one or more of: an algorithm for reducing a resolution of an image and/or a video; an algorithm for reducing a size of an image and/or a video (Blum, [49]); an algorithm for extracting one or more features from an image and/or a video; and an algorithm for reducing a frame rate of a video.
Regarding claim 13, Blum shows a method for transferring medical data from a clinical data infrastructure to a cloud-service provider, the method comprising: receiving, at the clinical-data infrastructure, medical data to be sent to the cloud-service provider with at least one available cloud service for analyzing the medical data ([34,46-47,55]), selecting a data reduction algorithm from one or more data reduction algorithms based on a data reduction requirement of the at least one available cloud service ([38,51]); applying the selected data reduction algorithm to the medical data to generate reduced medical data, which fulfils the data input requirement of the at least one data analysis algorithm ([21-22,27]); and transmitting the reduced medical data to the cloud-service provider via a communication network (Abstract, [11-16]). Blum does show use of cloud services ([21]), but does not show: wherein the at least one available service comprises at least one data analysis algorithm configured to analyze the medical data, and the at least one data analysis algorithm has a data input requirement. Bialecki shows wherein the at least one available service comprises at least one data analysis algorithm configured to analyze the medical data, and the at least one data analysis algorithm has a data input requirement ([45-48,58]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the medical imaging sharing techniques of Blum with the medical analysis of Bialecki in order better ensure the imaging data of Blum is linked to a compatible evaluation algorithm, helping ensure orderly and accurate processing of the medical data common to each invention.
Regarding claim 14, the above combination further shows a computer program product comprising instructions, which when executed by a processing unit, cause the processing unit to carry out the steps of the method of claim 13 (Blum, [21] and Bialecki, [98-100]).
Regarding claim 15, the above combination further shows a computer-readable data carrier having stored thereon the computer program product of claim 14 (Blum, [59] and Bialecki, [23,94-95]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Bialecki, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Amble (US-20200221951-A1).
Regarding claim 4, Blum in view of Bialecki show claim 1, including wherein the processing unit is further configured to provide information to the cloud-service provider (Blum, [18-19,30]). The above combination does not show providing identification information of the clinical-data infrastructure. Amble shows providing identification information of the clinical-data infrastructure ([76]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the image exchange and data processing of the above combination with the identification data tracking of Amble in order to ensure compliance with PII protection laws applicable to healthcare data (e.g., HIPPA).
Claims 5 – 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Bialecki, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Moulick (Moulick, Himadri Nath, and Moumita Ghosh. "Medical image processing using a service oriented architecture and distributed environment." American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2.10. 52-62. Line numbering added. (Year: 2013)).
Regarding claim 5, Blum in view of Bialecki show use of a cloud service when processing clinical data (Blum, Abstract, [21]). The above combination does not show wherein the processing unit is further configured to receive information describing an availability of a new service for the clinical-data infrastructure. Moulick shows wherein the processing unit is further configured to receive information describing an availability of a new service for the clinical-data infrastructure (pg. 52 lines 25-27 and lines 46-48, pg. 54 lines 6-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the image exchange and data processing of the above combination with the service availability exchange of Moulick in order to ensure the potential service consumers are kept aware and up-to-date about the available service options.
Regarding claim 6, Blum in view of Bialecki show use of data reduction algorithms as well as use of cloud services (Blum, Abstract, [21]). The above combination does not show: wherein the processing unit is further configured to update the one or more data algorithms related to the at least one available service. Moulick shows wherein the processing unit is further configured to update the one or more data algorithms related to the at least one available service. (pg. 58 lines 1-7 and 46-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the image exchange and data processing of the above combination with the service availability exchange of Moulick in order to ensure the potential service consumers are kept aware and up-to-date about the available service options.
Regarding claim 7, the above combination further shows wherein the processing unit is configured to receive the information describing an availability of a new cloud (Blum, [21]) service (Moulick, pg. 52 lines 25-27 and 46-48, pg. 54 lines 6-41) and/or information describing an availability of an update for the one or more data-reduction algorithms by polling a service in the cloud (Moulick, pg. 54 lines 16-34 and Blum, [21]) or by an active trigger from the cloud-service provider.
Regarding claim 8, Blum in view of Bialecki show use of cloud services (Blum, [21]). The above combination does not show: wherein the input unit is configured to receive result data from the cloud-service provider, wherein the result data is generated by the at least one available service; and wherein the output unit is configured to transmit the result data to the clinical-data infrastructure. Moulick shows: wherein the input unit is configured to receive result data from the cloud-service provider, wherein the result data is generated by the at least one available service (Fig.5, pg. 57 line 54 – pg. 58 line 52); and wherein the output unit is configured to transmit the result data to the clinical-data infrastructure (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the image exchange and data processing of the above combination with data handling techniques of Moulick in order to enable simplified data exchange operations while also supporting advanced and updatable processing algorithms.
Regarding claim 10, the above combination further shows: wherein the processing unit is configured to apply a combination algorithm to combine the received medical data and the result data to create one or more new data objects (Moulick, pg. 57 lines 54-63, pg. 58 Section 1).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Bialecki, and Moulick as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Rose (US-20070078679-A1).
Regarding claim 9, Blum in view of Bialecki and Moulick show claim 8. The above combination does not show: wherein the processing unit is configured to decompress the result data; and wherein the transmitted result data is the decompressed result data. Rose shows: wherein the processing unit is configured to decompress the result data; and wherein the transmitted result data is the decompressed result data ([43-45, 52]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the image exchange and data processing of the above combination with the data compression techniques of Rose in order to save on transmission time and costs.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Bialecki, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of LeMahieu (US-6757413-B1).
Regarding claim 11, Blum in view of Bialecki show wherein the processing unit is configured to download from the cloud (Blum, [11-16,23]). The above combination does not show download of at least one of the data reduction algorithm and the combination algorithm. LeMahieu shows download of at least one of the data reduction algorithm and the combination algorithm (col. 6 lines 24-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the image exchange and data processing of the above combination with the data reduction control and adjustment mechanisms of LeMahieu in order to allow the medical professionals utilizing the system and processed image data more control of the image quality and other image characteristics.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Bialecki, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Dorn (US-20150234557-A1).
Regarding claim 12, Blum in view of Bialecki show claim 1. The above combination does not show: wherein the processing unit is configured to access the at least one available cloud service through a license owned by the clinical-data infrastructure. Dorn shows wherein the processing unit is configured to access the at least one available cloud service through a license owned by the clinical-data infrastructure ([16,99]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the image exchange and data processing of the above combination with the license utilization of Dorn in order to improve utilization of licensed and available resources, and thus improve the value derived from the acquired licenses.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes:
Zhao Longgang et al. English translation of CN107995143A . (Year: 2018).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M MACILWINEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at (571) 272 - 3949. 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.
JOHN MACILWINEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2442
/JOHN M MACILWINEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights