DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to a response filed 3 September 2026 on an application filed 10 April 2025, which is a continuation of two applications that claim domestic priority to a provisional application filed 22 February 2019.
Claims 21, 24, 33 and 39 have been amended.
Claims 21-40 are currently pending and have been examined.
The claims are directed to anonymizing and storing sensitive patient healthcare information in distinct geographical regions and, therefore, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and correspondingly contain statutory material.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 21-24, 30, 32-35 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hunt et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2010/0122336 A1), hereinafter Hunt, further in view of Redlich et al. (U.S. Patent 7,552,482 B2), hereinafter Redlich.
As per claims 21, 33 and 39, Hunt discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium for use on a computer system containing computer-executable programming instructions for performing operations for transmitting electronic data, and a system and a computer-implemented method of transmitting electronic data (Hunt, Figs. 4 and 5.), the method comprising:
one or more data storages devices storing instructions (Hunt, Figs. 4 and 5.); and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to perform operations (Hunt, Figs. 4 and 5.) comprising:
receiving into a temporary storage, via a health data management system in a first geographic region, electronic data including patient-specific image data from a computing device for analysis (DAC 3 receives DICOM data, such as 2D CT scan data, from a workstation, see Fig. 4 and paragraph 83, the hospital computing device is in the hospital, which would comprise the first geographic region. The Office notes that it is old and well known that computer data storage can be deleted/overwritten, and is therefore temporary.);
generating a unique case identifier for the electronic data (System prepares a unique identifier for DICOM objects, the UID, see paragraphs 106, 120 and 125.);
removing patient information from the electronic data by (Hunt, see Figs. 21 and 22.):
collecting the patient information from the electronic data (Hunt, see Figs. 21 and 22.);
identifying a region-specific web service in the first geographic region (Hunt identifies a web service that is available for processing data and associated with a region, such as that indicated behind M2S Fire Wall of Fig. 4, see paragraphs 7, 13, 71 and 72.); and
updating the electronic data without the patient information to include the unique case identifier (Anonymized DICOM object contains UID, see paragraphs 106, 120, 125 and especially 166.);
compressing the updated electronic data (See paragraphs 68 and 132.);
providing the compressed electronic data to at least one data analysis web service(s), located in a second geographic region outside of the first geographic region, wherein the at least one data analysis web service(s) is configured to analyze the compressed electronic data (See paragraphs 13, 68, 71 and 75, wherein the data is provided to an outside third party, as the outside third party is outside the hospital, it would be in a second region outside the first.); and
deleting the electronic data from the temporary space … (Hunt discloses deleting electronic data from the temporary space DAC3 every day, see paragraph 103.);
receiving a request for a health data report and one or more of a preconfigured setting or style for the health data report (Image data is provided to the system, which comprises a request for a health data report, see Hunt paragraph 172. System receives user preference information for creating initial reports, see paragraphs 168, 172, 176.); and
generating, using the at least one data analysis web service(s), the health data report for the patient, the health data report including a representation of a patient's heart and one or more calculations of coronary-related metrics (System generates an initial report in the style indicated by the user, herein the style is determined based on previous stored preferences for a user, see paragraphs 149, 154-155, 164, 165, 168, 172 and 176. Note paragraph 173 where computer identified findings are provided in a prepopulated report for a user to manually inspect and finalize. The Office notes that the indication that the health report includes a representation of a patient’s heart and one or more calculations of a coronary-related metric amounts to a design choice because, as claimed, the report would be generated in the same manner regardless of what is in the report as the material in the report also amounts to non-functional descriptive material.).
Hunt fails to explicitly disclose:
extracting patient information;
encrypting the extracted patient information;
sending the encrypted patient information with the unique case identifier to the identified region-specific web service; and
… maintaining the extracted patient information with the identified region-specific web service … wherein the extracted patient information is maintained in encrypted form and in association with the unique case identifier … .
However, Redlich teaches that it was old and well known in the art of electronic data communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide extracting patient information; encrypting patient information; sending the encrypted patient information with the unique case identifier to the identified service; and maintaining the extracted patient information with the identified region-specific web service, wherein the extracted patient information is maintained in encrypted form, and in association with the unique case identifier, (Redlich discloses extracting sensitive information from source data, encrypting that extracted data and saving the sensitive information and the remainder information in computer storages located in separate geographic locations, see Fig. 1A and C14L33-C15L64. Encrypted data is associated with remaining data via memory location map #112, wherein the location of the map would comprise the unique case identifier. The Office notes that storing patient information would comprise maintaining patient information.) in order to provide a system for handling sensitive information more securely.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic data communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the DICOM data transmission functionality of Hunt to include extracting patient information; encrypting patient information; sending the encrypted patient information with the unique case identifier to the identified service; and maintaining the extracted patient information with the identified region-specific web service, wherein the extracted patient information is maintained in encrypted form, as taught by Redlich, in order to provide a DICOM data transmission system that is enabled for handling sensitive information more securely. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Neither Hunt nor Redlich explicitly disclose, but Yousfi teaches that it was old and well known in the art of electronic data communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain data in a region-specific database of the identified region-specific web service … wherein the region-specific database is accessible only from within the first geographic region (Yousfi discloses a system wherein sensitive data is maintained locally and only available within a region specific database, see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 3, 24, 25, 36-48, 41, 42, 55 and 87.) in order to respect healthcare privacy regulations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic data communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the DICOM data transmission functionality of Hunt/Redlich to include use of a regions specific database wherein only devices within that region can access the data in the database, as taught by Yousfi, in order to provide a DICOM data transmission system that is enabled for respecting healthcare privacy regulations. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Hunt, Redlich and Yousfi are all directed to the processing of sensitive data.
A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform, see MPEP 2114 (II) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). “Language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation”, see MPEP 2111.04.
The following limitation is interpreted as an intended use of the claimed invention:
… for analysis in the receiving limitation.
The prior art is capable of performing the intended use recitation, therefore the prior art meets the limitations.
As per claims 22, 23, 30, 32, 34 and 35, Hunt/Redlich/Yousfi discloses claims 21, 33 and 39, discussed above. Hunt also discloses:
22,34. wherein the unique case identifier is attached to the electronic data pertaining to a single case study (Hunt, UID of paragraphs 106, 125 and 166.);
23. wherein the patient-specific image data is in in Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) format (Hunt, see paragraphs 71 and 72.);
30. receiving a request for the report in a defined format (Image data is provided to the system, which comprises a request for a health data report, see Hunt paragraph 172. System receives user preference information for creating initial reports, see paragraphs 168, 172, 176.);
retrieving the report from a storage entity using the unique case identifier (Hunt, see paragraphs 138, 158.); and
providing the report to at least one of a computing device, an electronics records server, or a pre-configured destination network address (Hunt, see paragraphs 72 and 82.); and
32,35. wherein the computing device is at least one of a patient assessment system, an imaging modality, and a workstation (Hunt, Figs. 2 and 4.).
As per claim 24, Hunt/Redlich/Yousfi disclose claim 21, discussed above. Hunt further discloses receiving, in the first geographic region and from the second geographic region, the report from the at least one data analysis web service(s) (System generates and provides report, see Hunt paragraphs 149, 154-155, 164, 165, 168, 172 and 176.).
Hunt fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein deleting the electronic data from temporary storage takes place after providing the electronic data to at least one data analysis web service(s) and before receiving the report; and
retrieving the patient information from the identified region-specific web service using the unique case identifier; and decrypting and patient information and updating the report to include the patient information.
However, Redlich teaches that it was old and well known in the art of electronic data communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide:
wherein deleting the electronic data from temporary storage takes place after providing the electronic data to at least one data analysis web service(s) and before receiving the report (Redlich, see Fig. 5, error deletion. See also C16L48-53, C18L46-53, C21L48-61 and C22L35-37.); and
retrieving the patient information from the identified region-specific web service using the unique case identifier; and decrypting and patient information and updating the report to include the patient information (Redlich discloses reconstructing patient report from multiple regions using identifiers to locate and decrypt sensitive information, see Fig. 5.);
in order to provide a system for handling sensitive information more securely.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic data communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the DICOM data transmission functionality of Hunt/Redlich/Yousfi to include wherein deleting the electronic data from temporary storage takes place after providing the electronic data to at least one data analysis web service(s) and before receiving the report; retrieving the patient information from the identified region-specific web service using the unique case identifier; and decrypting and patient information and updating the report to include the patient information, as taught by Redlich, in order to provide a system for handling sensitive information more securely. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Claims 25 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hunt/Redlich/Yousfi, further in view of Gunjal et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2018/0152339 A1), hereinafter Gunjal.
As per claims 25 and 40, Hunt/Redlich/Yousfi disclose claims 21 and 39, discussed above. Hunt further discloses:
providing one or more network parameters associated with the computing device to a Web Application Firewall (WAF) service to determine a geo-location of the computing device (Hunt, paragraphs 14, 64 and 72. Harmon discloses determining the geo-location of the device, see Fig. 4.); and
retrieving a network address of a region-specific web service … provided by the WAF service, wherein the identified region-specific web service is the region-specific web service associated with the retrieved network address (See paragraphs 71, 72 and 122. Harmon discloses identifying a region-specific web service, see Fig. 4.).
Hunt/Redlich fails to explicitly disclose using a location-specific Application
Programming Interface (API).
However, Gunjal teaches that it was old and well known in the art of electronic data communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose using a location-specific Application Programming Interface (API) (See the determination of the selection of one API over another based on the geographic location of the service provider computer at Gunjal paragraphs 22 and claim 5.) to enable location specific data communications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic data communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the DICOM data transmission functionality using artificial intelligence of Hunt/Redlich/Yousfi to include a system that uses a location-specific Application Programming Interface (API), as taught by Gunjal, to arrive at a DICOM data transmission system using artificial intelligence enabled to provide location specific data communications. Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141)
Hunt and Gunjal are both directed to the electronic processing of healthcare data.
Claims 26-29, 31 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hunt/Redlich/Yousfi, further in view of Seliger et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2016/0285852 A1), hereinafter Seliger.
As per claims 26-29 and 36-38, Hunt/Redlich/Yousfi disclose claims 21 and 33, discussed above. Hunt further discloses:
26,36. receiving a request to download the health data management system on the computing device (Hunt, paragraph 63 shows DAC Pro is used as a CD ROM with the hospital computing device; It is the Office’s position that inserting the CD ROM would comprise a request to use the system.);
31. wherein the report is pushed … (Finalized report is saved in database, see paragraphs 177, 194-196, such as the PACs database of Fig. 1.)..
27,37. configuring the health data management system to receive electronic data from at least one of a patient assessment system, a CT Scanner, and a workstation (Hunt, Figs. 2 and 4.);
receiving a priority of the computing device over a web interface (Paragraphs 114 and 158.); and
updating the compressed electronic data based on the received priority (Paragraphs 114 and 158.); and
29. configuring a host name, one or more network parameters for the computing device (Hunt, see paragraphs 63, 100 and 103.), one or more communication ports (Hunt, see paragraphs 63, 64, 100 and 103.), or a combination thereof.
Hunt/Redlich fails to explicitly disclose:
26,36. providing an installation file for downloading the health data management system on the computing device;
31. … a Health Level Seven International (HL7) message, or as a portable document format (PDF) object; and
28,38. creating a virtual machine on the computing device;
deploying the installation file from a virtual machine client; and
activating the virtual machine.
Seliger teaches that it was old and well known in the art of electronic data communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose:
26,36. providing an installation file for downloading the health data management system on the computing device (Seliger, see paragraphs 82 and 106-108.);
31. … a Health Level Seven International (HL7) message, or as a portable document format (PDF) object (Seliger, paragraphs 19 and 21.); and
28,38. creating a virtual machine on the computing device; deploying the installation file from a virtual machine client; and activating the virtual machine (Seliger, see paragraphs 82 and 106-108 and Figs. 4 and 10A.);
in order to provide a “virtual machine [that] provides protection against malicious software that might execute on the host computer” (Seliger, paragraph 8.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic data communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the DICOM data transmission functionality using artificial intelligence of Hunt/Redlich/Yousfi to include a system that deploys a provided installation file on a virtual machine and use of a pdf format, as taught by Seliger, to arrive at a DICOM data transmission system enabled to provide a “virtual machine [that] provides protection against malicious software that might execute on the host computer” (Seliger, paragraph 8.). Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Both Hunt and Seliger are directed to the electronic processing of data in a networked environment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3 September 2026 concerning the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments filed 3 September 2026 concerning the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, specifically with reference to the new reference necessitated by amendment, Yousfi, as detailed above, or because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In conclusion, all of the limitations which Applicant disputes as missing in the applied references, including the features newly added by amendment, have been fully addressed by the Office as either being fully disclosed or obvious in view of the collective teachings of Hunt, Redlich, Yousfi, Gunjal and Seliger based on the logic and sound scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, as detailed in the remarks and explanations given in the preceding sections of the present Office Action and in the prior Office Action (6 April 2026), and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Unused but relevant cited art includes:
Reid et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2016/0277374 A1) discloses systems and methods for securely storing and sharing information.
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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mark Holcomb, whose telephone number is 571.270.1382. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8-5). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached at 571.272.6702.
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.
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
13 October 2026
