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Claims 10-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed June 16, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Response to Amendment
It is noted that claims 1-9 have been cancelled and new claims 18-28 have been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 18-20, 22, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Singh et al. (US 8,961,188 B1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Singh et al. (US 8,961,188 B1) in view of Hendricks (US 10,438,415 B2).
Regarding claim 18, Singh discloses a customizable extended reality (XR) patient simulator system comprising: a controller (Fig. 6, “processor” 602) configured to operate upon executable program elements corresponding to case-specific information pertaining to an XR environment and case-specific interactions between a user of the system and an XR patient;
a display (Figure 6, “output display” #618) communicatively coupled with the controller and configured to depict a graphical representation comprising the XR environment and at least one graphical element corresponding to at least one executable element of the executable program elements with the XR patient situated therein (col. 2 lines 14-18, col. 5 lines 29-52, for example, the XR environment is the virtual patient and patient EMR file and the participant may interact with the display screen, ordering additional tests for the virtual patient and which run different modules in the EMR virtual patient file);
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 XR environment;
and a rapid case creation tool (Fig, 2) comprising:
a case data module (Figure 13A Case Module #1304) for accessing, generating or customizing an extended reality patient case (XRPC) (EMR virtual patient file, Fig. 9, Fig. 14) wherein the XRPC comprises an interactive XPRC in the XR environment configured to be displayed on the display via the graphic representation, wherein the interactive XPRC is configured to be dynamically updated in response to user interaction with the XR environment (Fig. 11, col. 5 lines 43-52, col. 7 lines 4-18 for example the virtual patient’s EMR record is customized, accessed and generated using the case module and updated based on interaction with the participant such as ordering tests, treatments, etc.);
and a case logic module comprising customizable dynamic computing rulesets for providing functionality for the XRPC in the XR environment, and cooperative with the case data module such that based upon an interaction of the user of the at least one graphical element, causes the at least one executable element to execute executable program elements to generate, modify, or operate the XRPC within the XR environment (Figures 13a, 13b, col. 7 lines 4-18, col. 13 lines 31-60, col 14 lines 40-67, col. 15 lines 1-2, claim 1 for example the virtual patient and their EMR changes over time based on participant recommendations, actions, prescriptions, etc).
Alternatively, regarding claim 18, as noted above, the examiner believes that Singh discloses an XR environment with virtual patients, simulations, mannequins, etc. which in effect are an XR environment. However, Singh does not use the term XR environment. If one determines that Singh does not disclose an XR environment, Hendricks teaches of a mixed reality medical training system with a computer device, viewing device, mannequins and virtual patients (Fig. 25 col. 2 lines 31-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include an XR environment such as taught in Hendricks in the simulations of Singh in order to assist the participants by having an accurate representation of a medical situation so that they can accurately diagnose medical issues.
Regarding claim 19, 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 20, 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 22, 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 24, 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 25, 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(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 8,961,188 B1) or alternatively (as noted for claim 18) over Singh et al. (8,961,188 B1) in view of Hendricks (US 10,438,415).
Regarding claim 21, Singh discloses a customizable extended reality patient simulator system of claim 20, 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) 23 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) or alternatively, over Singh et al. (8,961,188 B1) in view of Hendricks (US 10,438,415) in further view of Eggert (US 2008/0138779 A1).
Regarding claim 23, 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) 26-28 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 26, 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.
Regarding claim 27, Singh lacks in disclosing dynamically audio-visually updating the extended reality patient case. Hendricks teaches of configuring the XR system to be dynamically audio-visually updated in response to the user interaction with the XR environment (Hendricks col. 28 lines 5-9, col. 41 lines 30-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to dynamically update audio visual cues in the virtual simulations of Singh. Many medical situations include audio situations such as patients disclosing their symptoms to a doctor or breathing difficulty that can be heard. It is therefore obvious to use these audio clues to help participants diagnose a medical condition as audio clues are additional details for the scenario.
Regarding claim 28, Singh discloses an extended reality (XR) computing system, comprising:
a processor (Fig. 6, “processor” 602), memory (Fig. 5 #504) storing instructions that when executed by the processor, causes the XR computing system to execute a rapid XR case creation tool (Fig. 2, Figs. 8 & 9, col. 6 lines 50-60, EMR record), wherein the rapid XR case creation tool comprises:
a case data module (Figure 13A Case Module #1304) for accessing, generating or customizing an extended reality patient case (XRPC) (EMR virtual patient file, Fig. 9, Fig. 14) wherein the XRPC comprises an interactive XPRC in the XR environment configured to be displayed on the display via the graphic representation, wherein the interactive XPRC is configured to be dynamically updated in response to user interaction with the XR environment (Fig. 11, col. 5 lines 43-52, col. 7 lines 4-18 for example the virtual patient’s EMR record is customized, accessed and generated using the case module and updated based on interaction with the participant such as ordering tests, treatments, etc.);
and a case logic module comprising customizable dynamic computing rulesets for providing functionality for the XRPC in the XR environment, and cooperative with the case data module such that based upon an interaction of the user of the at least one graphical element, causes the at least one executable element to execute executable program elements to generate, modify, or operate the XRPC within the XR environment (Figures 13a, 13b, col. 7 lines 4-18, col. 13 lines 31-60, col 14 lines 40-67, col. 15 lines 1-2, claim 1 for example the virtual patient and their EMR changes over time based on participant recommendations, actions, prescriptions, etc).
Alternatively, regarding claim 28, as noted above, the examiner believes that Singh discloses an XR environment with virtual patients, simulations, mannequins, etc. which in effect are an XR environment. However, Singh does not use the term XR environment. If one determines that Singh does not disclose an XR environment, Hendricks teaches of a mixed reality medical training system with a computer device, viewing device, mannequins and virtual patients (Fig. 25 col. 2 lines 31-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include an XR environment such as taught in Hendricks in the simulations of Singh in order to assist the participants by having an accurate representation of a medical situation so that they can accurately diagnose medical issues.
Singh further lacks in disclosing dynamically audio-visually updating the XR environment. Hendricks teaches of configuring the XR system to be dynamically audio-visually updated in response to the user interaction with the XR environment (Hendricks col. 28 lines 5-9, col. 41 lines 30-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to dynamically update audio visual cues in the virtual simulations of Singh. Many medical situations include audio situations such as patients disclosing their symptoms to a doctor or breathing difficulty that can be heard. It is therefore obvious to use these audio clues to help participants diagnose a medical condition as audio clues are additional details for the scenario.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to an extended reality (XR) environment have been noted. The Examiner believes that Singh does disclose an extended reality environment with virtual patient simulations. Nevertheless, an additional rejection has been made with Hendricks clearly illustrating an extended reality environment. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are considered but are moot in view of the new rejection.
It is noted that newly added claims 18-28 overcome the previous 101 rejection due to now claiming a particular machine and a practical application of executing program elements to generate, modify or operate the XRPC within the XR environment.
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 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
Prosecution Insights