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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 08/14/2025, the following occurred: Claims 1-19 have been amended.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because it recites the abbreviations NAT without their full form.
The first occurrence of all acronyms or abbreviations should be written out for clarity, whether or not they may be considered well known. Appropriate corrections/clarification 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a system for near-zero delay Peer-to-Peer communication, which is within a statutory category (or are interpreted to be within a statutory category for subject matter eligibility analysis purposes).
Step 2A1
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of storing files and programs, discovering public IP addresses of the clients and facilitating the generation of a direct P2P connection for media streams, casting live video and audio media streams over said direct P2P connection; remotely controlling POCU client cameras, signal views and audio; processing, in real-time during said live medical procedure, the live video and audio, streams to identify deviations from a predetermined medical protocol and generate guidance instructions, and for sending said guidance instructions; displaying guidance instructions as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain method organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting a physically tangible Proctoring Unit (PU) client, a physically tangible Point Of Care Unit (POCU) client, a network, a communication system, a Main Host Server comprising a hardware processor and a non-transitory computer-readable memory, a Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Server comprising a hardware processor and memory, Real-Time Communication (RTC) module, with memory and hardware processor, a Video Server comprising a hardware processor and memory, client PU web browser control command actuators, artificial intelligence unit comprising hardware and processor, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people (i.e., rules or instructions). For example, the claims encompass a remote proctoring system for generating and displaying guidance instructions 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 – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, following rules or instructions)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of a physically tangible Proctoring Unit (PU) client, a physically tangible Point Of Care Unit (POCU) client, a network, a communication system, a Main Host Server, a non-transitory computer-readable memory, a Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Server, Real-Time Communication (RTC) module, a Video Server, client PU web browser control command actuators, artificial intelligence unit comprising hardware, memory and hardware processor. These additional elements are not exclusively defined by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic server for enabling access to medical information or generic computer components for performing generic computer functions) such that they amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. As set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d) “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 further recites the additional element of POCU client cameras, microphone, HDMI camera and machine learning algorithms for processing live video and audio streams. These additional element are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means to output/receive/transmit data) and amount to extra solution activity. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that extra-solution data gathering activity cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
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 a physically tangible Proctoring Unit (PU) client, a physically tangible Point Of Care Unit (POCU) client, a network, a communication system, a Main Host Server, a non-transitory computer-readable memory, a Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Server, Real-Time Communication (RTC) module, a Video Server, client PU web browser control command actuators, artificial intelligence unit comprising hardware, memory and hardware processor to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Moreover, using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Also as discussed with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element POCU client cameras, microphone, HDMI camera and machine learning algorithms for processing live video and audio streams were considered extra-solution activity. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) indicates that receiving and/or transmitting data over a network has been held by the courts to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity (citing Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs., and buySAFE). Well-understood, routine and conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). As such the claim is not patent eligible.
The examiner notes that: A well-known, general-purpose computer has been determined by the courts to be a well-understood, routine and conventional element (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank; see also MPEP 2106.05(d)); and Performing repetitive calculations is/are also well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see, e.g., Parker v. Flook; MPEP 2016.05(d)).
Claims 2-19 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim(s) 2 further merely describe(s) connection from the POCU client to the Video Server, a POCU client microphone connection and a Video System Control Architecture (VISCA)-over-Internet Protocol (IP)for camera data. Claim(s) 3 further merely describe(s) PU microphone communication to POCU streamed through the STUN server to the Video Server. Claim(s) 4 further merely describe(s) a connection for a camera and a painter. Claim(s) 5 further merely describe(s) bi-directional communication means. Claim(s) 6 further merely describe(s) the POCU has a plurality of audio systems and visual screen monitors and displays streaming communication. Claim(s) 7 further merely describe(s) the audio and visual system. Claim(s) 8 further merely describe(s) the at least one camera. Claim(s) 9 and 11 further merely describe(s) the POCU. Claim(s) 10 further merely describe(s) the medical monitoring system. Claim(s) 12 and 14 further merely describe(s) the system for presenting communication. Claim(s) 13 and 15 further merely describe(s) the PU. Claim(s) 16 further merely describe(s) the PU client web browser control command actuators. Claim(s) 17 further merely describe(s) the system comprising at least one cloud-based unit (CBU). Claim(s) 18 further merely describe(s) the CBU. Claim(s) 19 further merely describe(s) connecting at least one Point Of Care Unit (POCU) and at least one Proctoring Unit (PU);c. activating the units, transferring data from the POCU to the PU and displaying the data. Claims 2-19 further narrow down the abstract idea and are rejected for the same reasons presented above with respect to claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 also include the additional elements of “a POCU client microphone” and “at least two cameras”. Claim(s) 4 also include the additional elements of “a camera” and “audio/video server” and “audio/video server”. Claim(s) 6 also include the additional elements of “POCU has a plurality of audio systems and visual screen monitors”. Claim(s) 8 also include the additional elements of “a robotic camera”. Claim(s) 10 also include the additional elements of “a medical monitor”, “a camera visual system” and “an audio system”. Claim(s) 11 also include the additional elements of “visual systems” and “audio systems”. Claim(s) 12 also include the additional elements of “a Screen display”, “a helmet-based unit”, “a glasses-based unit”, “a virtual reality, mixed reality, computer-mediated reality or augmented reality based platform”, and “Three-Dimensional (3-D) glassware”. Claim(s) 14 also include the additional elements of “a display” and “a speaker”. Claim(s) 16 also include the additional elements of “a camera” , “a laser pointer”, “a keyboard”, “a joystick”, “an eye tracker”, and “a voice command actuator”. Claim(s) 17 and 18 also include the additional elements of “at least one cloud-based unit (CBU)”. These additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, are recited at high level generality and amount to extra solution activity. They do not provide practical application or significantly more. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that extra-solution data gathering activity cannot provide a practical application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
The Main Host Server in claims 1 and 5.
The Session Traversal Utilities for NAT Server in claims 1 and 3-6.
The Real-Time communication module in claim 1.
The Video Server in claims 1-6.
The client PU web browser control command actuators in claims 1 and 16.
The artificial intelligence unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The examiner has reviewed the specification and found no structure associated with the Main Host Server, the Session Traversal Utilities for NAT Server, the Real-Time communication module, the Video Server, the client PU web browser control command actuators and the artificial intelligence unit.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1 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.
Claim 1 recites functional steps for which the Applicant has not adequately described the steps in sufficient detail for one of the ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the Applicant has possession of the invention at the time of filling.
Specifically, the claim 1 recites “… a Main Host Server… a Session Traversal Utilities for NAT Server… a Real-Time communication module… a Video Server… client PU web browser control command actuators… and an artificial intelligence unit…” Claim 2 recites “… a connection from the POCU client to the Video Server… a POCU client microphone connection to the PU client via the Video Server… for camera data from the POCU client to the PU client via the Video Server…” Claim 3 recites “…communication to POCU streamed through the STUN server to the Video Server …” Claim 4 recites “… the POCU client via the Video Server … streamed over the STUN server… the stream over occurring in the Audio/Video Server.” Claim 5 recites “… and the Main Host Server (131), bi-directional communication between the STUN Server and the Main Host Server (141) and bi-directional communication from the Video Server to the Main Host Server …” Claim 6 recites “… and displays streaming communication through the STUN server to the Audio/Video Server.” Claim 16 recites “… the PU client web browser control command actuators for controlling the POCU client cameras…”
The Applicant has provided no disclosure of structure associated the Main Host Server, the Session Traversal Utilities for NAT Server, the Real-Time communication module, the Video Server, the client PU web browser control command actuators and the artificial intelligence unit.
As can be see, there is no clear link to the Main Host Server, the Session Traversal Utilities for NAT Server, the Real-Time communication module, the Video Server, the client PU web browser control command actuators and the artificial intelligence unit having any structure evidencing that the Applicant was not in possession of the invention at the time of filing. As such the claimed invention lacks adequate written description.
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.
Claims 1-12 are 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.
In claims 1 and 5, the limitation “Main Host Server” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The as-filed disclosure is devoid of any structure associated with the Main Host Server. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In claims 1 and 3-6, the limitation “Session Traversal Utilities for NAT Server” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The as-filed disclosure is devoid of any structure associated with the Session Traversal Utilities for NAT Server. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In claim 1, the limitation “Real-Time communication module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The as-filed disclosure is devoid of any structure associated with the Real-Time communication module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In claims 1-6, the limitation “Video Server” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The as-filed disclosure is devoid of any structure associated with the Video Server. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In claims 1 and 16, the limitation “client PU web browser control command actuators” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The as-filed disclosure is devoid of any structure associated with the client PU web browser control command actuators. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In claim 1, the limitation “artificial intelligence unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The as-filed disclosure is devoid of any structure associated with the artificial intelligence unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Dependent claims are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Regarding the claim objection(s), the Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the basis/bases of objection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-19, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments, and finds them persuasive. The software per se rejection has been dropped.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-19, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments, and finds them persuasive. The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claim. In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest the combination of: a system for near-zero delay peer to peer (P2P) communication for remote medical proctoring of a live medical procedure, the system comprising: physically tangible Proctoring Unit (PU) client (110) at a first location and a physically tangible Point Of Care Unit (POCU) client (120) at a second, remote location, wherein the PU client and POCU clients are configured for live, bi-directional communication over a network via a communication system comprising a. a Main Host Server (130) comprising a hardware processor and a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing files and programs, said Main Host Server configured for live bi-directional WebSocket communication between the PU client and the POCU client for signaling and control b. a Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Server (140) comprising a hardware processor and memory, said STUN server configured for discovering public IP addresses of the clients and facilitating the generation of a direct P2P connection for media streams between the PU client and the POCU client that bypasses the Main Host Server, thereby achieving near-zero delay communication for the live medical procedure c. an Real-Time Communication (RTC) module (150) comprising computer- executable instructions stored in memory and executed by a hardware processor for casting live video and audio media streams over said direct P2P connection d. a Video Server (160) comprising a hardware processor and memory configured for hosting live audio and video streaming software from POCU client e. client PU web browser control command actuators for remotely controlling POCU client cameras, signal views and audio f. microphone, High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) camera and painter communication channels from the PU client to the POCU client via the Video Server; wherein said Main Host Server (130) is configured for displaying guidance instructions at the Proctoring and Point Of Care Units and g. an artificial intelligence unit comprising a hardware processor configured by machine learning algorithms for processing, in real-time during said live medical procedure, the live video and audio, streams to identify deviations from a predetermined medical protocol and generate guidance instructions, and for sending said guidance instructions to the Main Host Server (130)
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. 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.
The prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Meglan (US 2018/0032130) teaches operating room and surgical site awareness. Garcia Kilroy (US 20190005848) discloses virtual reality training, simulation, and collaboration in robotic surgical system. Boone (US 2002/0196141) discloses apparatus and methods for patient point of care data management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIZA TONY KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4664. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 9:00am-6:00pm ET.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on 571-272-6773. 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 the 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/docs 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.
/LIZA TONY KANAAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683