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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 22, 2025.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1-9 recite a customizable extended reality patient simulator system including a controller, display and feedback unit. Thus, the claims are to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Claim 1 recites:
A customizable extended reality patient simulator system comprising:
a controller configured to operate upon executable program elements that are in the form of case-specific information pertaining to an extended reality environment and case-specific interactions between a user of the system and an extended reality patient;
a display signally cooperative with the controller and configured to depict to the user the extended reality environment with the extended reality patient situated therein;
a plurality of sensors signally cooperative with the controller;
a feedback unit signally cooperative with the controller,
the display and the plurality of sensors to present to the user a sensory-based immersion within the extended reality environment;
and a rapid case creation tool formed on the display to provide a graphical representation of at least a portion of the executable program elements to the user,
the rapid case creation tool comprising: a case data module; and a case logic module cooperative with the case data module such that upon manipulation by the user of at least a portion of the graphical representation of the executable program elements from each of the case logic module and the case data module, the system performs at least one of: creation of an extended reality patient case; modification of the extended reality patient case; and operation of the extended reality patient case the examiner finds that the foregoing italicized elements recite: (a) a mental process because they can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper; and (b) a certain method of organizing human activity because they describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, and following rules or instructions).
In the instant case the rapid case creation tool can be done completely with pen and paper creating and editing patient cases, i.e. a mental step, and is also considered organizing human activity by managing patient case files, i.e. following rules or instructions for diagnosis.
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
The elements that are bolded above are the additional elements.
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements including the controller, display, sensors and feedback unit are all convention generic computer components and do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely an incidental or token additions to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of the rapid case creation tool are performed.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as tool to perform the abstract idea. Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh et al. (US 8,961,188 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Singh discloses a customizable extended reality patient simulator system comprising: a controller (Fig. 6, “processor” 602) configured to operate upon executable program elements that are in the form of case-specific information pertaining to an extended reality environment and case-specific interactions between a user of the system and an extended reality patient;
a display (Figure 6, “output display” #618) signally cooperative with the controller and configured to depict to the user the extended reality environment with the extended reality patient situated therein;
a plurality of sensors (Figure 6 “peripheral devices” #610, i.e. a camera is a peripheral sensor device, claim 8) signally cooperative with the controller;
a feedback unit (col. 9 lines 51- col. 10 line 10 “evaluator #351) signally cooperative with the controller, the display and the plurality of sensors to present to the user a sensory-based immersion within the extended reality environment;
and a rapid case creation tool (Fig, 2) formed on the display to provide a graphical representation of at least a portion of the executable program elements to the user, the rapid case creation tool comprising:
a case data module (Figure 13A Case Module #1304); and a case logic module cooperative with the case data module such that upon manipulation by the user of at least a portion of the graphical representation of the executable program elements from each of the case logic module and the case data module, the system performs at least one of: creation of an extended reality patient case; modification of the extended reality patient case; and operation of the extended reality patient case (Figures 13a, 13b, col 14 lines 40-67, col. 15 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Singh discloses wherein the controller comprises at least one processor (Fig. 5 #502) and memory (Fig. 5 #604) cooperative with one another to respectively operate upon and store the machine code.
Regarding claim 3, Singh discloses wherein the graphical representation comprises a logic design window configured to display editable case nodes that are selected from the case logic module (Figs. 9 & 10, col. 13 lines 19-60).
Regarding claim 4, Singh discloses wherein the editable case nodes comprise actions, checks, effects and effect chains (Figs. 9 & 10, col. 13 lines 19-60, col. 14 lines 20-39).
Regarding claim 6, Singh discloses wherein the actions comprise at least one of conducting an assessment, administering medication, placing an intravenous line, placing at least one lead, performing a compression, checking vital signs, reviewing orders and reviewing laboratory results (col. 5 lines 16-53 reviewing orders & lab results, claim 2, Fig. 12 #1212A New Vitals).
Regarding claim 8 Singh discloses wherein the graphical representation comprises a plurality of sub-modules of the case data module, the sub-modules comprising a state sub-module and an actions sub-module (i.e. subsequent scenarios, see abstract, summary of the invention, simulation modules are sub-module with various nodes, and state sub-modules are reviewing patient records in the subsequent simulations).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 8,961,188 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Singh discloses a customizable extended reality patient simulator system of claim 4, with a logic design window but lacks in disclosing displaying interconnection lines that upon placement between a pair of the editable case nodes establishes a logical connection therebetween. It is noted that the display of interconnection lines placed between pairs of case nodes is considered printed matter, i.e. non-functional descriptive material and is not given patentable weight due to no functional relationship related to the substrate, i.e. display. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the invention to include interconnection lines in the editable screens of Singh so that individuals could see what tasks should be completed or viewed, merely providing information to the individuals.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 8,961,188 B1) in view of Eggert (US 2008/0138779 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Singh lacks in disclosing wherein the editable case nodes further comprise a timer node. Eggert in a similar art of patient simulation systems teaches of a patient simulation where the timer node for completion of the simulation may be edited (Eggert Fig. 14 & 15, ¶128, ¶291). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include an editable timer node in Singh so that users can fast forward the time in various medical scenarios that take long periods such as child birth, this way a user can complete the simulations in a shorter period of time.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 8,961,188 B1) in view of Hendricks et al. (US 10,438,415 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Singh lacks in disclosing an overlay that upon use superimposes a visual grid pattern on the extended reality patient within the extended reality environment. Hendricks in a similar art of virtual reality medical training simulations teaches of superimposing a visual grid pattern on an extended reality patient within the extended reality environment (Hendricks Fig. 6 col. 17 lines 48-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to overlay a visual grid on the virtual patients in Singh. By using a grid pattern, users have a reference point to describe locations where a virtual patient is having concerns and can use it as a guide for moving tools around in virtual simulations. Grids provide reference points to users and are well known to be used in medical situations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Musara U.S. 11,532,132 – discloses a training program with virtual patients where in simulation modules have nodes.
Lampotang U.S. 2016/0133056 – discloses an interactive mixed reality simulator for medical students with various modules.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE K BROCKETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-0206. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/JULIE K BROCKETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3700