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 October 15, 2025.
Claims 1 and 13 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 8, 10, 18 and 20-21 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11-15, 17, 19 and 22 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 15, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites the following limitations “represent, by modelling an environment and at least one of persons or objects situated in the environment, a complex environment together with the X-Ray imaging facility; and control the complex environment together with the X-Ray imaging facility remotely.” Applicant’s specification does not sufficiently describe how the complex environment is being controlled when the complex environment represents people situated in the environment.
Applicant’s specification states the following regarding the complex environment: “Apart from remotely controllable objects such as robots, medical technology facilities and the like, such a complex system can also comprise persons who are present in the vicinity of these objects and, where relevant, interact with them.” (para 66; emphasis added). “Preferably, the remote control facility according to the invention is configured, by modelling the environment and the persons and/or objects situated therein, to represent with the display unit a complex environment together with one or more medical technology facilities and to control them remotely. For capturing the complex environment, additional sensors, RFID tags for identifying persons, cameras, and sensors for position detection can be used…Advantageously, the digital twin can represent a whole operating theater or even a complex hospital environment by the integration of a plurality of facilities and the modeling of the environment and the persons active therein. Such an environment is highly dynamic due to the humans active within it. In order to include the persons in the digital twin, additional sensors can be installed for capturing the environment. Such sensors can comprise, for example, RFID tags for identifying the persons or cameras for capturing a current position and pose.” (para 105; emphasis added).
Applicant’s specification clearly describes the modeling of people within the vicinity of the x-ray facility, however there is no sufficient description of how the complex environment is being controlled when the complex environment includes “persons situated in the environment”. Examiner notes that it’s unclear how a person is being controlled as a result of controlling the complex environment.
For the purposes of Examination and compact prosecution, Examiner interprets the control of the complex environment, in regards to the people situated in the environment, to mean that the people are communicated to and/or physically moved as a result of the modeling of the people in the virtual environment. However, appropriate clarification and/or correction are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 11 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the following limitations “represent, by modelling an environment and at least one of persons or objects situated in the environment, a complex environment together with the X-Ray imaging facility; and control the complex environment together with the X-Ray imaging facility remotely.” As currently recited, it is unclear as to how the complex environment is being controlled when the complex environment represents people situated in the environment.
Applicant’s specification clearly describes the modeling of people within the vicinity of the x-ray facility, however there is no sufficient description of how the complex environment is being controlled when the complex environment includes “persons situated in the environment”. Therefore, it is unclear how a person is being controlled as a result of controlling the complex environment. (see Applicant’s specification citations in related 112(a) rejection above).
For the purposes of Examination and compact prosecution, Examiner interprets the control of the complex environment, in regards to the people situated in the environment, to mean that the people are communicated to and/or physically moved as a result of the modeling of the people in the virtual environment. However, appropriate clarification and/or correction are required.
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, 6-7, 9, 11-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuthi et al. (US 20200211699) in view of Kagermeier et al. (US 20190150876).
Regarding claim 1, Nuthi discloses the following limitations:
A remote communication facility, comprising: processing circuitry configured to cause the remote communication facility to capture state data from an X-Ray imaging facility, (Nuthi discloses a system (A remote communication facility, comprising: processing circuitry) for identifying at least one of a skill level, tools list, or replacement part list to fix a problem of a machine (e.g., an x-ray imaging system) (an X-Ray imaging facility) based on a digital twin of the machine. Input data (e.g., the machine health, machine information, and machine logs) from the machine is used (capture state data from an X-Ray imaging facility) along with sensor data from sensors connected to the device/resource (i.e., the x-ray device). – paras 5, 21, 24, 44, 55, 63)
generate a digital twin based upon the state data, (Nuthi discloses that the model generator 242 of FIG. 2 is a structural component to generate an artificial intelligence model (e.g., network model/digital twin, other machine/deep learning construct, etc.) (generate a digital twin) when the device does not correspond to one of the fleets (e.g., does not correspond to an already available artificial intelligence model). The artificial intelligence model corresponds to the machine information (e.g., model, age, usage profile, etc.) (based upon the state data). The digital twin 330 can be used to view a status of the device/resource 310 based on the input data 320 (based upon the state data) dynamically provided from a source (e.g., from the device/resource 310, technician, health information system, sensor, etc.). – paras 21, 23, 44, 55, 65; FIG. 3)
the digital twin including a digital representation of the X-Ray imaging facility, (Nuthi discloses an accurate digital description of the device/resource via a virtual space including a digital twin of the device/resource in real space (e.g., an x-ray device) (a digital representation of the X-Ray imaging facility). – paras 62-63; FIG. 3)
display a three-dimensional representation of the X-Ray imaging facility included in the digital twin, (Nuthi discloses that, in certain examples, three-dimensional (3D) modeling of the device/resource 310 (display a three-dimensional representation of the X-Ray imaging facility) creates the digital twin 330 (included in the digital twin) for the device/resource 310. – para 65)
communicate with the X-Ray imaging facility based upon displayed data of the digital twin, (Nuthi discloses that the digital twin 330 and/or its virtual space 335 provide information 340 (based upon displayed data of the digital twin) back to the real space 315 through interaction between the digital twin and the device/resource (communicate with the X-Ray imaging facility). – paras 62-63; FIG. 3)
Nuthi does not disclose the following limitations met by Kagermeier:
the X-ray imaging facility including a control panel, (Kagermeier teaches that the operation of the medical technology device 2 (e.g., an x-ray imaging device) (the X-ray imaging facility) is controlled by a control unit 4 (including a control panel). – abstract; paras 29, 35, 135; FIG. 1, item 4)
present a virtually recreated control panel of the control panel of the X- Ray imaging facility, (Kagermeier teaches that the operator device interface comprises a control unit for controlling the operation of a medical technology device (present a virtually recreated control panel). – abstract; paras 18, 20-26)
and remotely control a radiation release by the X-Ray imaging facility based on the virtually recreated control panel. (Kagermeier teaches a method is for controlling operation of a medical technology device using a wireless, hand-held, mobile operator device including a touchscreen. The operator may use the operator device interface (based on the virtually recreated control panel) to implement a medical technology workflow, e.g., taking an x-ray image of a patient (and remotely control a radiation release by the X-Ray imaging facility). – abstract; paras 145-146)
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 the digital twin of the x-ray device as disclosed by Nuthi to incorporate a remote control system to implement a medical technology workflow as taught by Kagermeier in order to improve the ergonomics for operating a medical technology device (see Kagermeier para 6).
Regarding claim 2, Nuthi and Kagermeier disclose all the limitations above and further disclose the following limitations:
The remote communication facility of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the remote communication facility to communicate with the X-Ray imaging facility by at least one of: controlling the X-Ray imaging facility; monitoring a maintenance condition of the X-Ray imaging facility; or monitoring a state of a patient located in a region of the X-Ray imaging facility. (Nuthi discloses that an accurate digital description 330 of the device/resource/item 310 benefiting from a real-time or substantially real-time (e.g., accounting from data transmission, processing, and/or storage delay) processing allows the system 100 to predict “failures” in machine/device operation, accuracy, outcome, communication, etc. (monitoring a maintenance condition of the X-Ray imaging facility). Rather than reading a report, a technician can view and simulate with the digital twin 330 to evaluate a condition, progression, possible treatment, etc., for the device/resource 310. – paras 19, 63, 66, 68)
Regarding claim 6, Nuthi and Kagermeier disclose all the limitations above and further disclose the following limitations:
The remote communication facility of claim 1, 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 X-Ray imaging facility. (Nuthi discloses obtaining additional data by interfacing with the imaging device (additional state data relating to the X-Ray imaging facility). – paras 25, 120)
Regarding claim 7, Nuthi and Kagermeier disclose all the limitations above and further disclose the following limitations:
The remote communication facility of claim 1, wherein the state data includes operational parameters and machine data prepared for respective utilization purpose. (Nuthi discloses using data such as machine logs of deployed machine, system health information, error traces, utilization information and usage information (the state data includes operational parameters and machine data prepared for respective utilization purpose). The digital twin can also be used to evaluate environmental factors such as usage patterns. – paras 41, 55, 74)
Regarding claim 9, Nuthi and Kagermeier disclose all the limitations above and further disclose the following limitations:
The remote communication facility of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the remote communication facility to provide an alternative control function based upon the digital twin. (Kagermeier teaches displaying a virtual representation of a patient table and resulting x-ray beam in the form of a rectangle. The rectangle may be manipulated via the display (based upon the digital twin) and the collimator settings can be changed (provide an alternative control function) as a result. – paras 117, 160; FIG. 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 modified the digital twin of the x-ray device as disclosed by Nuthi to incorporate a remote control system to implement various control functions as taught by Kagermeier in order to improve the ergonomics for operating a medical technology device (see Kagermeier para 6).
Regarding claim 11, Nuthi and Kagermeier disclose all the limitations above and further disclose the following limitations:
The remote communication facility of claim 1, 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, a complex environment together with the X-Ray imaging facility; and control the complex environment together with the X-Ray imaging facility remotely. (Kagermeier teaches displaying a virtual representation of the patient table (modelling an environment and objects situated in the environment) on the operator device along with the resulting X-ray beam for the current collimator settings. From the corresponding operator control information of the touchscreen 10, control information is derived which causes the collimator to be adjusted accordingly (control the complex environment together with the X-Ray imaging facility remotely). Kagermeier further teaches that the operator device is likewise used for setting up and positioning the patient and/or the medical technology device. – paras 87, 159-160; FIG. 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 modified the digital twin of the x-ray device as disclosed by Nuthi to incorporate a modeling the patient table along with the x-ray device and a remote control system for implementing medical technology workflows as taught by Kagermeier in order to improve the ergonomics for operating a medical technology device (see Kagermeier para 6).
Regarding claim 12, Nuthi and Kagermeier disclose all the limitations above and further disclose the following limitations:
An operation and treatment system, comprising: at least one of an operation or treatment room including at least one X-Ray imaging facility; (Nuthi discloses modeling one or more real-life systems using a digital twin. The digital twin 330 of the machine, i.e., the x-ray device, (including at least one X-Ray imaging facility) can also model a space, such as an operating room (an operation room), surgical center, pre-operative preparation room, post-operative recovery room, etc. By modeling an environment, such as a surgical suite, the environment can be made, safer, more reliable, and/or more productive for patients, healthcare professionals (e.g., surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologists, technicians, etc.). For example, the digital twin 330 can be used to evaluate environmental factors (e.g., spacing, usage patterns, other equipment, etc.) that can impact machine 104 operation (including at least one X-Ray imaging facility), etc. Examiner notes that since the digital twin is a model of real-life systems, a digital twin of an operating room means that there is a real operating room being modeled. – paras 59, 61-62, 74)
and a control room, spatially separated from the at least one of operation or treatment room, including the remote communication facility of claim 1. (Kagermeier teaches that a display console with keyboard and mouse may be provided in an anteroom (a control room) adjoining the examination room (treatment room) in which the medical technology device is disposed (spatially separated). Further Kagermeier teaches utilizing a radiation protection wall in the examination room (a control room, spatially separated from the treatment room). – paras 3, 35, 122)
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 the operating room as disclosed by Nuthi to incorporate an anteroom or radiation protection wall as taught by Kagermeier in order to improve the ergonomics for operating a medical technology device (see Kagermeier para 6).
Regarding claim 13, Nuthi discloses the following limitations:
A remote communication method, comprising: capturing state data including at least one of machine data or operational parameters of an X-Ray imaging facility, (Nuthi discloses a system (A remote communication facility, comprising: processing circuitry) for identifying at least one of a skill level, tools list, or replacement part list to fix a problem of a machine (e.g., an x-ray imaging system) (an X-Ray imaging facility) based on a digital twin of the machine. Input data (e.g., the machine/system health information, machine information, error traces, usage information, and machine logs) (machine data or operational parameters) from the machine is used (capturing state data of an X-Ray imaging facility) along with sensor data from sensors connected to the device/resource (i.e., the x-ray device). – paras 5, 21, 24, 41, 44, 55, 63, 74)
generating a digital twin based upon the state data, (Nuthi discloses that the model generator 242 of FIG. 2 is a structural component to generate an artificial intelligence model (e.g., network model/digital twin, other machine/deep learning construct, etc.) (generating a digital twin) when the device does not correspond to one of the fleets (e.g., does not correspond to an already available artificial intelligence model). The artificial intelligence model corresponds to the machine information (e.g., model, age, usage profile, etc.) (based upon the state data). The digital twin 330 can be used to view a status of the device/resource 310 based on the input data 320 (based upon the state data) dynamically provided from a source (e.g., from the device/resource 310, technician, health information system, sensor, etc.). – paras 21, 23, 44, 55, 65; FIG. 3)
the digital twin including a digital representation of the X-Ray imaging facility; (Nuthi discloses an accurate digital description of the device/resource via a virtual space including a digital twin of the device/resource in real space (e.g., an x-ray device) (a digital representation of the X-Ray imaging facility). – paras 62-63; FIG. 3)
spatially remotely displaying a three-dimensional representation of the X-Ray imaging facility included in the digital twin, (Nuthi discloses that, in certain examples, three-dimensional (3D) modeling of the device/resource 310 (displaying a three-dimensional representation of the X-Ray imaging facility) creates the digital twin 330 (included in the digital twin) for the device/resource 310. – para 65)
spatially remotely communicating with the X-Ray imaging facility based upon displayed data of the digital twin; (Nuthi discloses that the digital twin 330 and/or its virtual space 335 provide information 340 (based upon displayed data of the digital twin) back to the real space 315 through interaction between the digital twin and the device/resource (communicating with the X-Ray imaging facility). For example, the technician device 108 can be a server or other network connected device that pushes instructions to the machine 104 (e.g., for remote repair) (spatially remotely communicating. The instructions can cause the machine 104 to load a new version of code, apply a code patch, reboot the machine, and/or perform other processes to repair the machine 108. – paras 27, 62-63; FIG. 3)
Nuthi does not disclose the following limitations met by Kagermeier:
the X-Ray imaging facility including a control panel; (Kagermeier teaches that the operation of the medical technology device 2 ( e.g., an x-ray imaging device) (the X-ray imaging facility) is controlled by a control unit 4 (including a control panel). – abstract; paras 29, 35, 135; FIG. 1, item 4)
the three-dimensional representation including a virtually recreated control panel of the control panel of the X-Ray imaging facility; (Kagermeier teaches a three-dimensionally visualizing display (three-dimensional representation) showing the radiation beam with the current collimator settings. The operator device interface comprises a control unit for controlling the operation of a medical technology device (including a virtually recreated control panel of the control panel of the X-Ray imaging facility). – abstract; paras 18, 20-26, 117, 159, 168; FIG. 1, items 4, 6)
and remotely controlling a radiation release by the X-Ray imaging facility based on the virtually recreated control panel. (Kagermeier teaches a method is for controlling operation of a medical technology device using a wireless, hand-held, mobile operator device including a touchscreen. The operator may use the operator device interface (based on the virtually recreated control panel) to implement a medical technology workflow, e.g., taking an x-ray image of a patient (and remotely controlling a radiation release by the X-Ray imaging facility). – abstract; paras 145-146)
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 the digital twin of the x-ray device as disclosed by Nuthi to incorporate a remote control system to implement a medical technology workflow as taught by Kagermeier in order to improve the ergonomics for operating a medical technology device (see Kagermeier para 6).
Regarding claim 14, Nuthi and Kagermeier disclose all the limitations above and further disclose the following limitations:
A non-transitory computer program product storing a computer program, directly loadable into a storage facility of a data processing facility, including program portions to carry out the method of claim 13 when the computer program is executed in the data processing facility. (Nuthi discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage device (A non-transitory computer program product) including the software (storing a computer program) and associated with the processor (directly loadable into a storage facility of a data processing facility, including program portions to carry out the method of claim 13 when the computer program is executed in the data processing facility). – paras 95-97; FIG. 11)
Regarding claim 15, Nuthi and Kagermeier disclose all the limitations above and further disclose the following limitations:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program portions, readable in and executable by a computer unit, to carry out the method of claim 13 when the program portions are executed by the computer unit. (Nuthi discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage device including the software (A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program portions) and associated with the processor (, readable in and executable by a computer unit, to carry out the method of claim 13 when the program portions are executed by the computer unit). – paras 95-97; FIG. 11)
Regarding claim 19, Nuthi and Kagermeier disclose all the limitations above and further disclose the following limitations:
The remote communication facility of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the remote communication facility to provide an alternative control function based upon the digital twin. (Kagermeier teaches displaying a virtual representation of a patient table and resulting x-ray beam in the form of a rectangle. The rectangle may be manipulated via the display (based upon the digital twin) and the collimator settings can be changed (provide an alternative control function) as a result. – paras 117, 160; FIG. 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 modified the digital twin of the x-ray device as disclosed by Nuthi to incorporate a remote control system to implement various control functions as taught by Kagermeier in order to improve the ergonomics for operating a medical technology device (see Kagermeier para 6).
Claims 4-5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuthi, in view of Kagermeier, further in view of Kaula et al. (US 20140062900).
Regarding claim 4, Nuthi and Kagermeier disclose all the limitations above, however, do not disclose the following limitations met by Kaula:
The remote communication facility of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the X-Ray imaging 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. (Kaula teaches a virtual reality representation of a medical device including a movable and rotatable three-dimensional model of the medical device. – abstract; paras 4, 28, 32)
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 digital description of a device or resource in a virtual space as disclosed by Nuthi to incorporate a three-dimensional rotatable model of the device as taught by Kaula in order to accurately portray how the medical device is located or oriented (see Kaula para 17).
Regarding claim 5, Nuthi, Kagermeier and Kaula disclose all the limitations above and further disclose the following limitations:
The remote communication facility of claim 4, wherein the representation environment is configured such that individual objects, situated in a region in which the X-Ray imaging facility is arranged, are hideable. (Kaula teaches that the edit menu may include a plurality of icons that each correspond to a particular manipulation of the medical device.. In step 450 the representation of the virtual reality representation of the medical device may be removed (individual objects are hideable). – para 47; FIG. 25, item 450)
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 digital description of a device or resource in a virtual space as disclosed by Nuthi to incorporate an editable model of medical devices where the virtual representation of devices may be removed as taught by Kaula in order to accurately portray how the medical device is located or oriented (see Kaula para 17).
Regarding claim 17, Nuthi, Kagermeier and Kaula disclose all the limitations above and further disclose the following limitations:
The remote communication facility of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the remote communication 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. (Kaula teaches a virtual reality representation of a medical device including a movable and rotatable three-dimensional model of the medical device (provide a representation environment for virtual reality with which the digital twin is rotatable). – abstract; paras 4, 28, 32)
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 digital description of a device or resource in a virtual space as disclosed by Nuthi to incorporate a three-dimensional rotatable model of the device as taught by Kaula in order to accurately portray how the medical device is located or oriented (see Kaula para 17)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuthi, in view of Kagermeier, in view of Wang et al. (US 20120197464), further in view of Meiler et al. (US 20180082818).
Regarding claim 22, Nuthi and Kagermeier disclose all the limitations above and further disclose the following limitations:
The remote communication facility of claim 1, wherein the state data includes a current device setting,…a time until next service, an operating duration…, internal sensor values… (Nuthi discloses utilizing data related to current conditions of the device/resource (a current device setting – paras 66, 72), machines that will soon need to be serviced (a time until next service – para 51), sensor data from sensors connected to the device (internal sensor values), and utilization/usage information (an operating duration – paras 41, 55). The artificial intelligence model also corresponds to the machine information (e.g., model, age, usage profile, etc.) (an operating duration – paras 41, 55). – paras 41, 51, 55, 66, 72)
…an organ program,…axis positions,… (Kagermeier teaches that examination protocols are well known in the prior art and contain operating parameters (an organ program) of the medical technology device 1 with which X-ray images that are suitable for corresponding assessment are achieved as the examination result. Remote-controllably adjustable components of the medical technology device can be set according to the at least one patient positioned (axis positions) in the medical technology device and according to the medical technology protocol. – paras 25, 149)
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 the digital twin of the x-ray device as disclosed by Nuthi to incorporate patient positioning and device operating parameters for a corresponding assessment as taught by Kagermeier in order to improve the ergonomics for operating a medical technology device (see Kagermeier para 6).
Nuthi and Kagermeier do not disclose the following limitations met by Wang:
…a battery level,… (Wang teaches providing information regarding an indication of the robot's battery charge (a battery level). – paras 216, 306)
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 digital twin of the x-ray device as disclosed by Nuthi to incorporate providing a battery charge status of the device as taught by Wang in order to seek recharging of the device (see Wang para 254).
Nuthi and Kagermeier do not disclose the following limitations met by Meiler:
and an X-Ray tube voltage (Meiler teaches a programmable controller connected to one or more sensors positioned on or within the X-ray tube so as to sense, detect or measure various tube operating parameters and data such as tube operating voltage (an X-Ray tube voltage). – 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 the digital twin of the x-ray device as disclosed by Nuthi to incorporate sensing, detecting or measuring x-ray tube operating voltage 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 § 101 to Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11-15, 17, 19 and 22, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn in light of latest amendments.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 103 to Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11-15, 17, 19 and 22, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive regarding the newly added limitations of “present a virtually recreated control panel of the control panel of the X- Ray imaging facility, and remotely control a radiation release by the X-Ray imaging facility based on the virtually recreated control panel.” Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments is made in view of Kagermeier et al. (US 20190150876) to teach the identified limitations, as per the rejection above. Further, the Examiner notes that Wang, Kaula and Damany are no longer being relied upon to teach the limitations of independent claims 1 and 13. Therefore, Applicants arguments directed to the teachings of Wang, Kaula and Damany regarding amended claims 1 and 13 are moot. Examiner relies upon Nuthi et al. (US 20200211699) in view of Kagermeier et al. (US 20190150876), as per the rejection above.
Conclusion
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 at (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