Status of Claims
In response to applicant’s amendment filed 1/9/2026, claims 1-and 4-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poltaretskyi et al. (US 2019/0380792) in view of Pedersen et al. (US 2010/0179428) in further view of Millman (US 8,786,613) and Ratcliffe et al. (US 2014/0272867) and Perry et al. (US 2002/0150866).
Regarding claim 1, Poltaretskyi discloses a server-based simulation system comprising a trainer and trainees. See paragraph 1065. Poltaretskyi discloses wherein simulation models generated from received simulation data regarding medical training devices. See paragraph 1066-1067 and 1070. Poltaretskyi discloses wherein the system comprises separate GUI interfaces for each of an instructor and a trainee. See paragraph 0993.
Poltaretskyi does not mention security, nor is the cloud specifically mentioned, nor does Poltaretskyi disclose private networks. However, secure networks as well as the cloud, and various types of networks, including private networks, are established with regard to server applications. For example, these concepts are disclosed by as is disclosed by the simulation system of Millman in col. 31: 20-45. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider this with the Poltaretskyi system, in order to provide a secure network environment.
Poltaretskyi does not disclose wherein the system comprises a medical scanner. However, such is established with regard to medical simulation systems, as is disclosed by Pedersen in paragraph 0040. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider this with the Poltaretskyi system, so as to provide various training scenarios.
Poltaretskyi also does not explicitly disclose wherein the simulation model is an analytical model in machine executable form. However, analytical models and machine executable applications are established with regard to computer simulations, as described by the simulation system of Perry in paragraph 0041 (the user executes the simulation with an analytical model). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to consider various software distribution schemes and model options, because such schemes and options are generally expected in software applications, and do not provide any unexpected results in applicant’s claims that are not already established.
Poltaretskyi does not explicitly disclose wherein the control element (e.g. a tool) is simulated on a second server. However, this distribution scheme is established with regard to simulation systems, as is disclosed for example by the surgical training system of Ratcliffe in paragraph 0043 (note the model resides on a server but the simulation takes place at a client). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such schemes with the Poltaretskyi system, in order to provide an effective access scheme.
Regarding claims 4, 8-9, Poltaretskyi discloses wherein the simulation model is changed by a first user to a different state, and the model changes on the displays of the other users in real-time. See paragraph 1072.
Regarding claims 5-7, Poltaretskyi discloses wherein the trainer can activate viewing and control access to control components on the trainee GUI, and wherein the instructor can manipulate parameters which are changed on the trainee’s GUI and in the simulation model in real-time, as well as control access. See paragraphs 1066-1067.
Regarding claim 10, Millman discloses secure and unsecure servers in col. 31: 21-45. The use of such with the Poltaretskyi system would be obvious as described with regard to claim 1.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poltaretskyi et al. (US 2019/0380792) in view of Pedersen et al. (US 2010/0179428) and Millman (US 8,786,613) and Ratcliffe et al. (US 2014/0272867) and Perry et al. (US 2002/0150866) (US 2015/0243176) and Macallum (US 2018/0055435).
Regarding claims 11, Poltaretskyi does not disclose wherein devices are checked against a database of valid devices, However, this practice is established with regard to online systems, as is disclosed by the training system of Macallum in paragraph 0058. It would have been obvious on one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to consider this with the Jarc system, in order to provide a secure environment.
Claims 12-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poltaretskyi et al. (US 2019/0380792) in view of Millman (US 8,786,613) and Ratcliffe et al. (US 2014/0272867).
Regarding claims 12 and 20, the limitations are rejected as described above with regard to claim 1, and Poltaretskyi also discloses trainer and trainee displays in paragraph 0993.
Regarding claim 13, Poltaretskyi discloses wherein the simulation model is changed by a first user to a different state, and the model changes on the display of the other users in real-time. See 1072.
Regarding claims 14-17, Poltaretskyi discloses wherein the trainer can activate control components on the trainee GUI, including viewing access wherein the instructor can manipulate parameters which are changed on the trainee’s GUI and in the simulation model, in real-time, as well as control access. See paragraphs 1066-1067.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poltaretskyi et al. (US 2019/0380792) in view of Millman (US 8,786,613) and Ratcliffe et al. (US 2014/0272867) and Perry et al. (US 2002/0150866).
Regarding claims 18-19, all limitations are rejected as described above with regard to claim 1, less the Perry reference.
Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks dated 1/9/2025 have been fully considered. They are generally moot in light of the new base reference of Poltaretskyi. However, a couple of the arguments are likely still relevant to the above rejections, and have been addressed herein. Arguments not addressed below are moot in view of the new rejections. The Jarc reference was lacking in so much as it did not describe many of the claimed interactions between an instructor and student, and was not entirely clear about the two separate interfaces. It is no longer relied upon in this rejection. Prosecution is reopened and this action is non-final.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 1 that the prior art does not teach or suggest hosting a simulation model on a first and second servers with private networks. It is Millman that is relied upon for this teaching. Col. 31: 21-26 of Millman discloses wherein it is established to use configurations with the elements of table 8, such as those claimed by applicant. It is not that these configurations merely exist. Poltaretskyi discloses the medical models and interactions therewith. The rejection is made because the network distribution of the software claimed by applicant is thoroughly obvious, and such schemes are essentially just the expected use of software development and network tools. Applicant did not invent servers or software modulization. It is clear from the Millman reference that it is established to distribute software modules over multiple servers, using various networks, etc. This argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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 S VASAT can be reached at 571-570-7625. 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.
TIMOTHY A. MUSSELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715