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 Applicant’s communication filed on February 20, 2025.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-13, 18, and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 21-22 have been added.
Claims 1-2, 4-15 and 17-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application
No. DE10 2020 214 654.3 filed in the Federal Republic of Germany on 11/20/2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 13 recite “a X-Ray imaging facility” in line 3 of each claim; it should read “an X-Ray imaging facility”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1 is directed to a system and Claim 13 is directed to a method, therefore, all the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories. (Step 1: Yes, the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories).
Step 2A analysis - Prong one:
The substantially similar independent system and method claims, taking claim 1 as exemplary, recite the following: …capture state data from a X-Ray imaging facility, generate a…twin based upon the state data, the…twin including a…representation of the X-Ray imaging facility, display a three-dimensional representation of the X-Ray imaging facility included in the…twin, and communicate with the X-Ray imaging facility based upon displayed data of the…twin.
Examiner notes that the X-Ray imaging facility is being interpreted to be part of the abstract idea and not as an additional element because the claims recite data representing the X-Ray imaging facility and not the X-Ray imaging facility itself. Further, the “twin” and “representation” being digital is a consequence of the claim being confined to a computer and are therefore also being interpreted as part of the abstract idea and not as additional elements.
The series of steps as recited above is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system implemented by processing circuitry (computer), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the processing circuitry, this claim encompasses a person looking at data from an X-Ray imaging device, duplicating and displaying the data, and communicating the data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The Examiner notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes, the claims are abstract).
Step 2A analysis - Prong two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claims 1 and 13 recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea. Claim 1 recites a remote communication facility and processing circuitry. Claim 13 recites machine data and operational parameters which appear to be software.
The processing circuitry is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component (see Applicant’s specification para 42).
The remote communication facility is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a location from which data is received. For example, the step of capturing state data is performed in order to merely gather data. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1 and 13 are directed to an abstract idea without practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B analysis:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result, a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); iv) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. See MPEP §2106.05(d)(II).
This listing is not meant to imply that all computer functions are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, or that a claim reciting a generic computer component performing a generic computer function is necessarily ineligible. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. See MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added.
Here, the steps are receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)); performing repetitive calculations (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)); storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) – all of which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Further, the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
Applicant describes embodiments of the disclosure at a very high level to include the use of a wide variety of storage devices, memories, computer readable storage medium, sensors, cameras, cloud systems, databases, processors, networks, controllers, etc. (See Applicant’s specification paras 16, 42, 45-48, 52-53, 85, 105, 108).
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization.
The claims do not include additional elements 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 elements of processing circuitry, machine data and operational parameters to perform all of the steps discussed above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional element of a remote communication facility is considered insignificant extra-solution activity because it is performing mere data gathering and does therefore not add a meaningful limitation to the claimed invention. The claims do not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Step 2B: No, the claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims 2, 4-12, 14-15, and 17-22 further define the abstract idea that is presented in independent Claims 1 and 13, and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above. Further, Claims 2, 4, 10-11, 14-15, 17 and 20-21 recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea. Claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer program product, a computer program, program portions, and a storage facility. Claim 15 recites non-transitory computer-readable medium, program portions, and a computer unit. Claims 4 and 17 recite virtual reality. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. For example, as noted above, the Applicant’s specification indicates the use of known control/computer units (see Applicant’s spec paras 15, 85, 108).
Further, regarding Claims 2, 10-11, and 20-2. Claim 2 recites controlling the X-Ray imaging facility. Claims 10 and 20 recite remotely controlling a radiation release by the X-ray imaging facility. Claim 11 recites controlling the complex environment together with the X-Ray imaging facility. Claim 21 recites controlling the X-Ray imaging facility. Each of these claims recites “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the remote communication facility to”. Examiner notes that this indicates intended use and therefore the limitations of causing the X-Ray imaging facility to be controlled in the manner(s) recited may not be interpreted to be additional elements. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret these limitations to be additional elements. In regards to the controlling of the X-Ray imaging facility as recited in claims 2, 10-11, and 20-21; Examiner interprets these additional elements to be insignificant extra solution activity because the “control” could be interpreted as something as simple as flipping the imaging device on, logging in, or sending a notification. Therefore, these additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the claimed invention. The claims do not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1-2, 4-15, 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-2, 4, 6-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20120197464) in view of Kaula et al. (US 20140062900), further in view of Damany et al. (US 20230371912).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses the following limitations:
A remote communication facility, comprising:
processing circuitry configured to cause the remote communication facility to capture state data from a…facility, (Wang discloses a robot (a facility) that communicates with a local technician computing device 606 and the remote endpoint server 604b communicates with a remote operator computing device 608 (A remote communication facility, comprising: processing circuitry – para 212). This allows automatic data gathering of robot operation and usage histories (cause the remote communication facility to capture state data) without requiring the robot 100 to return to a base station. It also utilizes three-dimensional image sensors to gather depth map data. The robot system architecture 700 can facilitate proactive data collection (state data). Further, tag information is collected. The tag information comprises information regarding one of: an availability of a wireless communication signal, a speed the remote telepresence robot should travel, a location of a point of interest, a location of a person, a location of a docking station, a location of a rest area, a location of a glass wall, a location of a ramp, a location of an object, an optimal route to navigate a tight area, an optimal rout to navigate a congested area, and an action a remote telepresence robot should execute. The map data source 1620 may store the tagging and hyper-tag information (e.g., locations, tag identifiers, tag content) along with layout map and/or robot map information. – paras 25, 45, 190, 212, 225, 227, 277, 240, 312)
generate a digital twin based upon the state data (Wang discloses that the teleoperation software application 601 generates and displays a rendered look-ahead view (a digital twin) by using the map data (state data) and constructing a perspective "virtual reality" (three-dimensional) view based on the virtual location of the robot 100. – paras 277-280)
and communicate with the…facility based upon displayed data of the digital twin. (Wang discloses that the telepresence software application can use map data to render a "look-ahead view" (i.e., virtual 3D model) (digital twin) in response to a user input being required by the robot control system. For example, the robot’s (the facility) control system may perceive a ramp to be an obstacle, and in response, the control system 510 may communicate with the telepresence software application 601 to receive a user input as to whether the user perceives the ramp 1122 as an actual obstacle 1120b and/or to receive an alternative robot path 652 and/or an alternative robot destination 619. The user may then invoke the look-ahead command 624, causing the generation of a look-ahead view 612a and stopping further movement of the robot 100 along the corridor. The user may continue, however, to virtually move the robot 100 in a look-ahead mode to determine whether or not the ramp is an obstacle and enter the required user input via the user input device. Wang further discloses that by providing communication between the robot 100 and the cloud 720, information gathered by the robot 100 can be securely viewed by authorized users via a web-based information portal. – paras 226, 279 and 320)
Wang does not disclose the following limitations met by Kaula:
the digital twin including a digital representation of the…facility, (Kaula teaches a method of facilitating visualization by displaying a virtual reality representation of a medical device (a digital representation of the facility) via a touch-sensitive user interface. The virtual reality representation of the medical device includes a movable and rotatable three-dimensional model of the medical device. – abstract; paras 4,17)
display a three-dimensional representation of the…facility included in the digital twin, (Kaula teaches illustrating a three-dimensional (3-D) model (a three-dimensional representation) of a medical device (the facility). – abstract; paras 4,17)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified equipping an operator to control a telepresence robot within a hospital setting as disclosed by Wang to incorporate a three-dimensional model of the device being controlled (such as the robot as disclosed by Wang for example) as taught by Kaula in order to accurately portray how the medical device (or, the robot) is located or oriented (see Kaula para 17).
Wang and Kaula do not disclose the following limitations met by Damany:
a X-Ray imaging facility (Damany teaches remotely controlled and automated digital x-ray imaging systems (a X-Ray imaging facility) and methods. An x-ray source is operable to be selectively positioned relative to each of the patient beds using a remote control system including controls for firing of the x-ray source. – abstract; paras 1,5-6)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified equipping an operator to remotely interact with a patient as disclosed by Wang to incorporate remote control of x-ray imaging systems as taught by Damany in order to allow patients afflicted with infectious disease to remain in isolation from staff that would normally perform the imaging at the patient bedside (see Damany para 2).
Regarding claim 2, this claim depends on claim 1, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Wang discloses the following:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the remote communication facility to communicate with the…facility by at least one of: controlling the…facility; monitoring a maintenance condition of the…facility; or monitoring a state of a patient located in a region of the…facility. (Wang discloses that the user drives the robot 100 (controlling the facility) along a corridor using a joystick in communication with the telepresence software application 601. – para 279) (Wang further discloses that the user interface 605 includes a remote video feed window 610 displaying a remote view 612, such as a video feed of a patient 614 (monitoring a state of a patient). – para 215)
Wang and Kaula do not disclose the following limitations met by Damany:
the X-Ray imaging facility (Damany teaches remotely controlled and automated digital x-ray imaging systems (the X-Ray imaging facility) and methods. An x-ray source is operable to be selectively positioned relative to each of the patient beds using a remote control system including controls for firing of the x-ray source. – abstract; paras 1,5-6)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified equipping an operator to remotely interact with a patient as disclosed by Wang to incorporate remote control of x-ray imaging systems as taught by Damany in order to allow patients afflicted with infectious disease to remain in isolation from staff that would normally perform the imaging at the patient bedside (see Damany para 2).
Regarding claim 4, this claim depends on claim 1, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Wang discloses the following:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the…facility to provide a representation environment for virtual reality with which the digital twin is rotatable so that a view of the digital twin from different sides is enabled. (Wang discloses that the robots drive system 200 provides omni-directional and/or holonomic motion control of the robot 100, wherein the term "omni-directional" refers to the ability to move in substantially any planar direction, i.e., side-to-side (lateral), forward/back, and rotational. When the user is in the look-ahead view, the user can continue to drive forward and operate the virtual robot in the same manner, which provides a rotation facility where a user may view different sides of the facility. – paras 156, 277)
Wang and Kaula do not disclose the following limitations met by Damany:
the X-Ray imaging facility (Damany teaches remotely controlled and automated digital x-ray imaging systems (the X-Ray imaging facility) and methods. An x-ray source is operable to be selectively positioned relative to each of the patient beds using a remote control system including controls for firing of the x-ray source. – abstract; paras 1,5-6)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified equipping an operator to remotely interact with a patient as disclosed by Wang to incorporate remote control of x-ray imaging systems as taught by Damany in order to allow patients afflicted with infectious disease to remain in isolation from staff that would normally perform the imaging at the patient bedside (see Damany para 2).
Regarding claim 6, this claim depends on claim 1, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Wang discloses the following:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the remote communication facility to provide, apart from a graphical representation of the digital twin, additional state data relating to the…facility. (Wang discloses that the user interface 605 shows a dashboard window 640 that provides a battery charge status, a wireless signal strength indicator, and a robot outline having portions that may light up when service is required. The robot system architecture 700 can also facilitate proactive data collection. For example, applications 710 executed on the computing device 310 may collect data and report on actions performed by the robot 100 and/or a person or an environment viewed by the robot 100 (using the sensor system 400). This data can be a unique property of the robot. – paras 227, 306)
Wang and Kaula do not disclose the following limitations met by Damany:
the X-Ray imaging facility (Damany teaches remotely controlled and automated digital x-ray imaging systems (the X-Ray imaging facility) and methods. An x-ray source is operable to be selectively positioned relative to each of the patient beds using a remote control system including controls for firing of the x-ray source. – abstract; paras 1,5-6)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified equipping an operator to remotely interact with a patient as disclosed by Wang to incorporate remote control of x-ray imaging systems as taught by Damany in order to allow patients afflicted with infectious disease to remain in isolation from staff that would normally perform the imaging at the patient bedside (see Damany para 2).
Regarding claim 7, this claim depends on claim 1, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Wang discloses the following:
wherein the state data includes operational parameters and machine data prepared for respective utilization purpose (Wang discloses that the robot connectivity to the cloud allows for automatic data gathering of robot operation[s] (operational parameters) and usage histories without requiring the robot to return to a base station. Further, the collected tag information and annotation (state data) may be human and/or machine interpretable (machine data). – paras 225 and 250)
Regarding claim 8, this claim depends on claim 1, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Wang discloses the following:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the remote communication facility to present a virtually recreated control panel of the…facility. (Wang discloses that the dashboard located on the user interface (virtually recreated control panel) 640 may provide information regarding the orientation of the robot 100, an indication of the robot's battery charge, an indication of the strength of a wireless data signal, and/or an indication of the network quality. The user interface also provides means for controlling the robot. For example, FIG. 6C provides a schematic view of an exemplary user interface 605 of the teleoperation software application 601 that can be rendered on a display, such as the remote operator computing device 608, for controlling navigation, telepresence, and/or other aspects of the robot 100. – paras 115-116, 215-218, 306 and FIGs 6B-6C)
Wang and Kaula do not disclose the following limitations met by Damany:
the X-Ray imaging facility (Damany teaches remotely controlled and automated digital x-ray imaging systems (the X-Ray imaging facility) and methods. An x-ray source is operable to be selectively positioned relative to each of the patient beds using a remote control system including controls for firing of the x-ray source. – abstract; paras 1,5-6)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified equipping an operator to remotely interact with a patient as disclosed by Wang to incorporate remote control of x-ray imaging systems as taught by Damany in order to allow patients afflicted with infectious disease to remain in isolation from staff that would normally perform the imaging at the patient bedside (see Damany para 2).
Regarding claim 9, this claim depends on claim 1, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Wang discloses the following:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the remote communication facility to provide an alternative control function based upon the digital twin. (Wang discloses that the user may virtually move the robot 100 in a look-ahead mode (the digital twin) to see the corridor, rooms, etc. The operations may further include updating 1012 the displayed look-ahead view 612a or a first-person point of view (POV) and updating (an alternative control function) a virtual localization/pose of the robot 100 as the robot 100 virtually maneuvers about in the look-ahead mode. The user may access the functionality and information needed at all times, even while the robot base is moving, including supervisory control modes and potential need for override capability to cancel/abort operation as needed (an alternative control function). – paras 79, 220, 279-280)
Regarding claim 10, this claim depends on claim 1, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Wang does not disclose the following limitations met by Damany:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the remote communication facility to remotely control a radiation release by the X-ray imaging facility. (Damany teaches a radiographic imaging system (the X-ray imaging facility) which may be deployed in an ICU unit of a medical facility that may benefit from isolating patients and health care providers. The radiography system provides a plurality of patient beds each having a digital radiographic detector positioned therein. An x-ray source is operable to be selectively positioned relative to each of the patient beds using a remote control system (the control unit). The remote control system also controls firing of the x-ray source (remotely control a radiation release). – see abstract)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified equipping an operator to remotely interact with a patient as disclosed by Wang, to incorporate a remote control system configured for firing of an x-ray source as taught by Damany, in order to isolate health care providers from communicable pathogens shed by patients being radiographically imaged (see Damany para 5).
Regarding claim 11, this claim depends on claim 1, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Wang discloses the following:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the remote communication facility to: represent, by modelling an environment and at least one of persons or objects situated in the environment, (The broadest reasonable interpretation includes alternative form and however a citation to both persons situated in the environment and objects situated in the environment is provided) (Wang discloses that the teleoperation software application 601 generates and displays a rendered look-ahead view by using the map data. The map data source 1620 may store the tagging and hyper-tag information (e.g., locations, tag identifiers, tag content) along with layout map and/or robot map information. Wherein the tag information comprises information regarding one of: an availability of a wireless communication signal, a speed the remote telepresence robot should travel, a location of a point of interest, a location of a person (persons situated in the environment), a location of a docking station, a location of a rest area, a location of a glass wall, a location of a ramp, a location of an object (objects situated in the environment), an optimal route to navigate a tight area, an optimal rout to navigate a congested area, and an action a remote telepresence robot should execute. – paras 25, 277 and 312)
a complex environment together with the…facility; and control the complex environment together with the…facility remotely. (Wang discloses FIG. 6A which provides a schematic view of an exemplary robot system 600 having one or more telepresence robots 100 (the facility) in communication with a bridge 602, which communicates with a local robot endpoint server 604a and a remote endpoint server 604b (e.g., such as the cloud computing service 720 (FIG. 7)) (control the complex environment together with the facility remotely). The local robot endpoint server 604a communicates with a local technician computing device 606 and the remote endpoint server 604b communicates with a remote operator computing device 608. – paras 114, 212, 214 and FIG. 6A)
Wang and Kaula do not disclose the following limitations met by Damany:
the X-Ray imaging facility (Damany teaches remotely controlled and automated digital x-ray imaging systems (the X-Ray imaging facility) and methods. An x-ray source is operable to be selectively positioned relative to each of the patient beds using a remote control system including controls for firing of the x-ray source. – abstract; paras 1,5-6)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified equipping an operator to remotely interact with a patient as disclosed by Wang to incorporate remote control of x-ray imaging systems as taught by Damany in order to allow patients afflicted with infectious disease to remain in isolation from staff that would normally perform the imaging at the patient bedside (see Damany para 2).
Regarding claim 12, this claim depends on claim 1, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Wang discloses the following:
An operation and treatment system, comprising:
at least one of an operation or treatment room including at least one…facility; (The broadest reasonable interpretation includes alternative form and therefore only a citation to an operation room is provided) (Wang discloses that the robot (at least one medical technology facility) may enter an operating room (OR) (an operation room) to provide telepresence support and/or to display a specific user interface. – para 256)
and a control room, spatially separated from the at least one of operation and treatment room, including the remote communication facility of claim 1. (Wang discloses FIG. 9B which shows an operating room from the hallway view and the robot (medical technology facility) may enter any room. Wang further discloses communication between the robots and a remote operator computing device (a control room, spatially separated). The user interface 605 may also include a local video window 630 displaying a local view 632, such as a video feed of the user (e.g., remote from the robot 100). – paras 126, 212, 215, 256, 283 and FIGs 6A-6D)
Wang and Kaula do not disclose the following limitations met by Damany:
the X-Ray imaging facility (Damany teaches remotely controlled and automated digital x-ray imaging systems (the X-Ray imaging facility) and methods. An x-ray source is operable to be selectively positioned relative to each of the patient beds using a remote control system including controls for firing of the x-ray source. – abstract; paras 1,5-6)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified equipping an operator to remotely interact with a patient as disclosed by Wang to incorporate remote control of x-ray imaging systems as taught by Damany in order to allow patients afflicted with infectious disease to remain in isolation from staff that would normally perform the imaging at the patient bedside (see Damany para 2).
Regarding claim 13, this independent claim recites substantially similar limitations to those recited in claim 1 above; thus, the same rejection applies.
Regarding claim 14, this claim depends on claim 13, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Wang discloses the following limitations:
A non-transitory computer program product storing a computer program, directly loadable into a storage facility of a data processing facility, (Wang discloses that the embodiments of the subject matter described in their specification can be implemented as one or more computer program products, i.e., one or more modules of computer program instructions encoded on a computer-readable medium for execution by, or to control the operation of, data processing apparatus.– paras 204 and 337-338)
Regarding claim 15, this claim depends on claim 13, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Wang discloses the following limitations:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program portions, readable in and executable by a computer unit, (Wang discloses that the computer programs (also known as programs, software, software applications or code) include machine instructions for a programmable processor, and can be implemented in a high-level procedural and/or object-oriented programming language, and/or in assembly/machine language. As used herein, the terms "machine-readable medium" and "computer-readable medium" refer to any computer program product, apparatus and/or device (e.g., magnetic discs, optical disks, memory, Programmable Logic Devices (PLDs)) used to provide machine instructions and/or data to a programmable processor, including a machine-readable medium that receives machine instructions as a machine-readable signal. The term "machine-readable signal" refers to any signal used to provide machine instructions and/or data to a programmable processor. – paras 4, 71 and 337-338)
Regarding claim 17, this claim depends on claim 2, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Additionally, it recites substantially similar limitations to those recited in claim 4 above; thus, the same rejection applies.
Regarding claim 18, this claim depends on claim 2, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Additionally, it recites substantially similar limitations to those recited in claim 8 above; thus, the same rejection applies.
Regarding claim 19, this claim depends on claim 2, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Additionally, it recites substantially similar limitations to those recited in claim 9 above; thus, the same rejection applies.
Regarding claim 20, this claim depends on claim 2, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Additionally, it recites substantially similar limitations to those recited in claim 10 above; thus, the same rejection applies.
Regarding claim 21, this claim depends on claim 1, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Wang and Kaula do not disclose the following limitations met by Damany:
wherein the X-Ray imaging facility includes a control panel, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the remote communication facility to present a virtually recreated control panel of the control panel of the X-Ray imaging facility, (Damany teaches a user control console 201 (a control panel) that may include a processing system for remotely controlling operation of the radiographic imaging systems. The control console 201 includes connected I/O devices such as a keyboard/mouse and a digital operator display 202 (present a virtually recreated control panel of the control panel of the X-Ray imaging facility) for the operator use. – paras 21, 24; FIG. 2, items 201, 202)
and control the X-Ray imaging facility based on the virtually recreated control panel. (Damany teaches a graphical user interface (GUI) 400 that displays control data and to provide operator controls (control the X-Ray imaging facility), which may be presented on digital operator display 202 (the virtually recreated control panel) as described herein with reference to FIG. 2. For example, operator display screen cursors 409, provided in the GUI 400, may be used by an operator while adjusting a position of the tube head 105, 115, to establish proper alignment with the fiducial markers 309. – paras 21, 24; FIG. 2; FIG. 4)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified equipping an operator to remotely interact with a patient as disclosed by Wang to incorporate remote control of x-ray imaging systems as taught by Damany in order to allow patients afflicted with infectious disease to remain in isolation from staff that would normally perform the imaging at the patient bedside (see Damany para 2).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20120197464) in view of Kaula et al. (US 20140062900) in view of Damany et al. (US 20230371912) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-15 and 17-21 above, further in view of Liang et al. (US 20100316268).
Regarding claim 5, this claim depends on claim 4, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Wang, Kaula and Damany do not disclose the following limitations met by Liang:
wherein the representation environment is configured such that individual objects are hideable. (Liang teaches the rendering of a 3D space containing one or more anatomical structures. A user (FIG. 8 item 821), can operate the system 800 to rotate and/or zoom a 3D scene (on display device 101) in order to visualize segmented objects from various perspectives to gain a more substantial understanding of the spatial relationships among different segmented structures. The appearance of a segmented object may also be adjusted by the user 821 to opaque, transparent, invisible or the like, using, e.g., associated object controls. In some embodiments, a user may show or hide certain objects (individual objects are hideable) to reveal areas that are occluded or see the objects within transparent objects. – para 32 and 39)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the teleoperation software application which generates and displays a rendered three-dimensional look-ahead view as disclosed by Wang, to incorporate the ability to show or hide certain objects in the 3D space as taught by Liang, in order to facilitate hepatic lesion/tumor resection planning that is easy to use (see Liang paras 30 and 74).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20120197464) in view of Kaula et al. (US 20140062900) in view of Damany et al. (US 20230371912) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-15 and 17-21 above, further in view of Meiler et al. (US 20180082818).
Regarding claim 22, this claim depends on claim 21, which is rejected for the basis and reasons disclosed above. Further, Wang discloses the following limitations:
wherein the state data includes…a battery level, a time until next service,…, internal sensor values (Wang discloses an indication of the robot’s battery charge (wherein the state data includes a battery level – paras 216, 306) and a robot outline having portions that may light up when service is required (a time until next service – para 306). The external surface(s) of the torso 140 may include a capacitive sensor (internal sensor values – para 167) in communication with the controller that detects user contact. – paras 167, 216, 306)
Wang and Kaula do not disclose the following limitations met by Damany:
…a current device setting, an organ program,…,…,…, axis positions,…, and an X-Ray tube voltage. (Damany teaches that the processing system may include a wired coupling 203 or a wireless transmission capability 204 for communicating with and controlling movement and operation of the tube crane 107 as well as the tube head 105, 115, and the x-ray sources therein, such as a power level (a current device setting – para 21) and timing of exposure (an organ program – para 21). A tube head 105, 115 having an x-ray source 306 is controllably rotated in directions 301 about axis x, for example, and about axes z and y, as necessary, by an operator P using control console 201 as described herein (axis positions – para 23). The control console 201 may include a processing system having electronic memory and may also be used to control the energy level of x-rays in x-ray beam (an X-Ray tube voltage – para 26). – paras 21, 23, 26)
Wang, Kaula and Damany do not disclose the following limitations met by Meiler:
…an operating duration… (Meiler teaches a programmable controller operatively connected to one or more sensors positioned on or within an X-ray tube so as to sense, detect or measure various tube operating parameters and data, including cumulative or session operating time of components (an operating duration). Such operating parameters may then be used to generate diagnostic information for the X-ray tube, such as end-of-life predictions for the tube itself, and/or for individual components, such as bearings, the emitter, or the anode. – para 6)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified interfacing with a mobile telepresence robot as disclosed by Wang to incorporate operating parameters such as operating time as taught by Meiler in order to prevent expensive down time and loss of revenues to the user (see Meiler para 6).
Response to Arguments
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) to Claim 11, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner has withdrawn the 112(b) rejection.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 101 to Claims 1-2, 4-15 and 17-22, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, and are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated in light of latest amendments. Applicant argues:
(a) On pages 4-9 of the Office Action, the Office asserts that claims 1-20 are directed towards a method of organizing human activity without significantly more. Applicants disagree, especially with regard to the claims as amended. (p. 7).
Regarding (a), Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to interact with an X-Ray imaging device. Applicant has not pointed to any specific limitations in the claims that fall outside of this characterization, thus the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
(b) Under prong two of Step 2A, even assuming arguendo that one of the recited features of the pending claims could be identified as reciting managing personal behavior (or could be otherwise identified as a judicial exception), which Applicants strongly disagree with, the pending claims surely integrate any alleged enumerated abstract idea into a practical application thereof. For example, in example 47 included in the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, in discussing the eligibility of claim 3 vs. the ineligibility of claim 2, the new guidance indicates "One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement." (Emphasis added). Because claim 1 provides a remote communication method including "generate a digital twin based upon the state data, the digital twin including a digital representation of the X-Ray imaging facility," "display a three-dimensional representation of the X-Ray imaging facility included in the digital twin," and "communicate with the X-Ray imaging facility based upon displayed data of the digital twin,""[a]n operating person can thus communicate indirectly with the real object remotely, purely based upon a reproduction of the digital representation," (Specification as filed, paragraph [0069]) and "a triggering of the X-ray radiation and a monitoring of the patient can take place from a distance that is safe for the operating personnel" (Specification as filed, paragraph [0088]). Therefore, claim 1 provides an improvement to the technology of remote medical imaging. (p. 8-10).
Regarding (b), Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. The claimed invention in Example 47, more specifically claim 3, was found eligible under Step 2A Prong Two because the claimed invention reflected the technical improvement described in the specification. Applicant’s argument that the field of remote medical imaging is a technology and that the claimed invention improves this field is not reflected in the claimed invention.
Here, while Applicant's argued problem of improving imaging technology is a technical problem, there is no nexus between the argued problem and the argued solution because there is no indication that the claimed invention actually solves this problem. For example, the claim recites “communicate with the X-Ray imaging facility based upon displayed data of the digital twin”. Using broadest reasonable interpretation, the communicating could merely be a notification or recommendation for an X-Ray technician to do something regarding the X-Ray device. Because the claim does not explicitly recite an improvement to the technology, a practical application is not present.
(c) Applicants assert independent claim 13 is allowable for reasons similar to independent claim 13. Accordingly, Applicants request the Examiner to reconsider and withdraw the above rejection of independent claims land 13 and the claims depending therefrom. (p. 10).
Regarding (c), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Based on response to arguments above, claim 1 is unpatentable and therefore similar independent claim 13, as well as all claims depending therefrom, are unpatentable according to the same rationale.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 103 to Claims 1-2, 4-15 and 17-22, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive regarding the newly added limitations to claims 1 and 13. Therefore, the rejection to claims 1 and 13 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments is made in view of Damany et al. (US 20230371912), as per the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KIMBERLY VANDER WOUDE whose telephone number is (703)756-4684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5 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, PETER H CHOI can be reached on (469) 295-9171. 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.
/K.E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights